Full text of "Record of the Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and Debates Vol. III"

See other formats

HI IP M

» «

iiaLAffSHNir riBimiv

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986

Sptorii
nf tijp

€ott0titMttDual (HommiBaton

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

VOLUME THREE

Prepared by the Editorial/Publication Unit
under the supervision of

Hon. FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO

Secretary-General

^ * i t

Republic of the Philippines
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986

THE OFFICERS:

NAPOLEON G. RAMA

Hoor Leader

JOSE D. CALDERON AHMAD DOMOCAO ALONTO

Assr. Floor Leader Asst. Floor Leader

FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO

Secretary-General

ROBERTO M. SAN ANDRES

Sergeant-at-Arms

COMMITTEES

COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY,
AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

Decoroso R. Rosales
Chairman

I'i

Gregorio J. Tingson
Vice-Chairman

COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS,
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND '
HUMAN RIGHTS

Jose B. Laurel, Jr. Joaquin G, Benias

Chairman Vice-Chairman

Members: Bemardo M. Villegas

Felicitas S. Aquino
Florangel Rosario Braid
Jose N. Nolledo
Minda Luz M. Quesada
Edmundo G. Garcia
Crispino M. de Castro
Vicente B. Foz
Adolfo S. Azcuna

Members: Yusup R. Abubakar

Rene V. Sarmiento
Edmundo G. Garcia
Francisco A. Rodrigo
Eulogio R. Lerum
Ambrosio B. Padilla
Jose C. Colay CO
Jaime S.L. Tadeo
Bernardo M. Villegas
Ponciano L. Bennagen
Teodoro C. Bacani
Teodulo C. Natividad

COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Hilario G. Davide, Jr. Adolfo S. Azcuna
"Chairman Vice-Chairman

Roberto R. Concepcion
Chairman

Ricardo J. Roniulo
Vice-Chairman

Members:

Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Yusup R. Abubakar
Jose D. Calderon
Francisco A. Rodrigo
Ahmad Domocao Alonto
Felicitas S. Aquino
Alberto M.K. Jamir
Roberto R. Concepcion
Eulogio R. Lerum
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr.
Serafin V.C. Guingona
Edmundo G. Garcia
Efrain B. Trenas

Members:

Jose C. Colay CO
Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Alberto M.K. Jamir
Florenz D. Regalado
Jose E. Suarez
Efrain B. Trenas
Rene V. Sarmiento
Lugum L. Uka
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Teodulo C. Natividad
Ambrosio B. Padilla
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.
Adolfo S. Azcuna

COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

AND AGENCIES

Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Chairman

Florenz D. Regalado
Vice-Chairman

Vicente B. Foz
Chairman

Cirilo A. Rigos
Vice-Chairman

Members:

Napoleon G. Rama
Jose D. Calderon
Ahmad Domocao Alonto
Roberto R. Concepcion
Vicente B. Foz
Regalado E. Maambong
Alberto M.K. Jamir
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Teodulo C. Natividad
Rene V. Sarmiento
Felicitas S. Aquino
Joaquin G. Bemas
Eulogio R. Lerum

Members:

Crispino M. de Castro
Christian S. Monsod
Yusup R. Abubakar
Bernardo M. Villegas
Decosoro R. Rosales
Florenz D. Regalado
Roberto R. Concepcion
Francisco A. Rodrigo
Alberto M.K. Jamir

COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
AND PATRIMONY

Jose N. Nolledo
Chairman

Jose D. Calderon
Vice-Chairman

Bernardo M. Villegas Jaime S.L. Tadeo

Chairman Vice-Oiairman

Members:

Gregorio J. Tingson
Decoroso R. Rosales
Ahmad Domocao Alonto
Crispino M. de Castro
Ponciano L. Bennagen
Florenz D. Regalado
Cirilo A. Rigos
Alberto M.K. Jamir
Bias F. Ople

Members:

Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon
Ponciano L. Bennagen
Ricardo J. Romulo
Christian S. Monsod
Rene V. Sarmiento
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.

Bias F. Ople
Jose E. Suarez
Lugum L. Uka
Teodoro C. Bacani
Teodulo C. Natividad
Vicente B. Foz
Wilfrido V. Villacorta

COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY
OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Christian S. Monsod Jose C. Colayco

Chairman Vice-Chairman

Wilfrido V. Villacorta
Chairman

Lugum L. Uka
Vice-Chairman

Members:

Ma. Teresa F. Nieva
Adolfo S. Azcuna
Ambrosio B. Padilla
Christine Tan
Jose D. Calderon
Gregorio J . Tingson
Ricardo J. Romulo
Lino O. Brocka
Jose N. Nolledo

Serafin V.C. Guingona
Lino O. Brocka
Minda Luz M. Quesada
Christine Tan
Ponciano L. Bennagen
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon
Cirilo A. Rigos
Florangel Rosario Braid
Efrain B. Trefias

COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

STEERING COMMITTEE

Florangel Rosario Braid
Chairman

Teodoro C. Bacani
Vice-Chairman

Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.
Chairman

Napoleon G. Rama
Vice-Chairman

Members:

Cirilo A. Rigos
Jose N. Nolledo
Teodulo C. Natividad
Lugum L. Uka
Crispino M. de Castro
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon
Regalado E. Maambong
Felicitas S. Aquino

Members:

Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr
Serafin V.C. Guingona
Ricardo J. Romulo
Joaquin G. Bernas
Francisco A., Rodrigo
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva
Minda Luz M. Quesada
Ahmad Domocao Alonto

COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND
transitory PROVISIONS

Jose E. Suarez
Chairman

Bias F. Ople
Vice-Chairman

COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES

Yusup R. Abubakar
Chairman

Minda Luz M. Quesada
Vice-Chairman

Members:

Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr.
Vicente B. Foz
Ambrosio B. Padilla
Regalado E. Maambong
Crispino M. de Castro
Rene V. Sarmiento
Christine Tan
Eulogio R. Lerum
Gregorio J. Tingson

Jose D. Calderon
Gregorio J. Tingson
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr.
Jose N. Nolledo
Roberto R. Concepcion

COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

COMMITTEE ON SPONSORSHIP

Serafin V.C. Guingona
Chairman

Edmundo G. Garcia
Vice-Chairman

Members:

Jaime S.L. Tadeo
Christian S. Monsod
Felicitas S. Aquino
Lino O. Brocka
Jose E. Suarez
Bias F. Ople
Minda Luz M. Quesada
Teodoro C. Bacani
Edmundo G. Garcia
Eulogio R. Lerum
Christine Tan
Wilfrido V. Villacorta
Ponciano L. Bennagen
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.
Francisco A. Rodrigo

Members: •

Wilfrido V. Villacorta
Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Christian S. Monsod
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr.
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva
Gregorio J. Tingson
Felicitas S. Aquino
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.

Lino O. Brocka
Ahmad Domocao Alonto
Jaime S.L. Tadeo
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon
Regalado E. Maambong

COMMITTEE ON STYLE

Francisco A. Rodrigo Efrain B. Trenas

Chairman Vice-Chairman

Members:

Wilfrido V. Villacorta
Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Serafin V.C. Guingona
Napoleon G. Rama
Jose N. Nolledo
Ambrosio B. Padilla
Yusup R. Abubakar
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Edmundo G. Garcia
Lugum L. Uka
Adolfo S. Azcuna
Rene V. Sarmiento
Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEARINGS

Edmundo G. Garcia
Chairman

Members:

Joquin G. Bemas
Ma. Teresa F. Nieva
Christian S. Monsod
Ponciano L. Bennagen
Serafin V.C. Guingona
Jose N. Nolledo
Florangel Rosario Braid
Jose E. Suarez
Felicitas S. Aquino

Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon
Vice-Chairman

Wilfrido V. Villacorta
Minda Luz M. Quesada
Adolfo S. Azcuna
Lino O. Brocka
Jaime S.L. Tadeo
Jose F.S. Bengzon, Jr.
Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr.
Decoroso R. Rosales

EDITORIAL STAFF

PABLO P. LIWANAG

Chief, Editorial I Publication

Editor in Chief

HEIDI M. PASCUAL
Supervising Editor

Editors

Avelina M. Atanacio
Lorna P. Manarang

Josefina T. Tamayo

Ma. Priscila O. Palmiano
Herminia N. Saet

Editorial Assistants

Ligaya M. Cinco
Teresita L. Cordial
Remedios S. Esquivias

Angeles S. Hamtig

Conchita A. Aquino
Rhodora L. Pagayon

Milagros M.G. Kagaoan

Joseph Zeus A. Luna

Ma. Lina Marciana C.T. Nario

Indexers

Fe B. Evangelista Preciosa I. Perez

Typists

Yolanda A. Bacero Lydia Abad Malig

Alfredo D. Recella

ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Technical Assistant for Operations

FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO

Secretary-General

Table of Contents

Plenary Sessions

Pages

R.C.C. No. 50 (August 7,1986) 1

R.C.C. No. 51 (August 8,1986) 61

R.C.C. No. 52 (August 9,1986) 115

R.C.C. No. 53 (August 11, 1986) 153

R.C.C. No. 54 (August 12, 1986) 203

R.C.C. No. 55 (August 13, 1986) 239

R.C.C. No. 56 (August 14, 1986) 293

R.C.C. No. 57 (August 15, 1986) 331

R.C.C. No. 58 (August 16, 1986) 369

R.C.C. No. 59 (August 18, 1986) 411

R.C.C. No. 60 (August 19, 1986) 469

R.C.C. No. 61 (August 20, 1986) 519

R.C.C. No. 62 (August 21, 1986) 563

RC.C. No. 63 (August 22, 1986) 579

R.C.C. No. 64 (August 23, 1986) 631

R.C.C. No. 65 (August 25, 1986) 669

R.C.C. No. 66 (August 26, 1986) 705

R.C.C. No. 67 (August 27, 1986) 741

Appendices

Land Reform - Pillar of the Nation’s Recovery

by Commissioner Gregorio J. Tingson 784

Explanation of Vote of Commissioner Monsod 785

Position Paper on Health

by Commissioner Minda Luz M. Quesada 786

Position Paper No. 2

by Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto 788

Structure of Government

by Rev. Francisco Araneta, S.J 791

The Need for a National Community

by Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto 794

Letter-Petition to President Marcos Re Autonomy

Mindanao, Sulu, Palawan, Basilan and Tawi-Tawi 799

Manifesto of the Ansar El Islam 801

Caucus of August 15, 1986 802

A Monopoly of Nationalism and Merit?

by Commissioner Jose D. Calderon

Resolution No. 20 821

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986

QUEZON CITY, METRO MANILA

Itecorb of the fltonetitutionnl ffomwitosion

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

R.C.C. NO. 50
Thursday, August 7, 1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 9:46 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia
Munoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT. Eveybody will please rise to sing
the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable
Florangel Rosario Braid.

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.

PRAYER

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Lord of Creation: In

supreme wisdom You have bestowed bountiful ^tts
upon Your children. In this country of ours,
been generous beyond measure. We marve a e
abundant resources of nature, pleasing to the eye an
provident to our physical needs. You have endowe
many of Your children with talents to be dedicated to
the service of humanity. And yet there is hunger an
weeping in the land. The powers of darkness
us, shaking our faith in ourselves. As we strive tor r
and social justice, our thoughts dwell on the wor s
the poet who said:

To you the earth yields her fruit, and you shall not want
if you know how to fill your hands. It is in exchanging t e
gifts of the earth that you shall find abundance and be satis-
fied. Yet, unless the exchange be in love and kindly justice,
it will but lead some to greed and others to hunger.

Help us see the need to be independent and the grace
to admit our need for interdependence, the need for self-

reliance and yet to be compassionate to others.

We have completed an important milestone; we have
listened to our people who have helped us identify the
hues, the weave and the pattern of this tapestry — a docu-
ment which hopefully would capture their aspirations.

We thank You for the dedication of our fellow Commis-
sioners, for the sacrifice of our Secretariat and support
staff, and our fellow countrymen out there in the gallery,
\ whose love for our country and people has motivated
tlrem to share with us their hopes. Continue to inspire us
to work for Your greater glory. Amen.

ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will
please call the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar . . . .

. Present*

Lerum

. Present*

Alonto

. Present

Maambong . . .

. Present'

Aquino

. Present

Monsod

. Present

Azcuna

. Present*

Natividad . . . .

. . Present*

Bacani

. Present*

Nieva

Bengzon

. Present*

Nolledo ....

Bennagen . . . .

. Present

Ople

Bernas

. Present

Padilla

Rosario Braid . .

. Present

Quesada ....

Brock a

Rama

Calderon

Regalado ....

. . Present

Castro de . . . .

Reyes de los .

. . Present

Colayco

Rigos

Concepcion . . .

. Present

Rodrigo . . . .

. . Present

Davide

. . Present

Romulo . . . .

. . Present

Foz

Rosales

. . Present

Garcia

. . Present*

Sarmiento . . .

. . Present

Gascon ....

Suarez

. . Present

Guingona . .

Sumulong . . .

. . Present

Jamir

Tadeo

. . Present

Laurel ....

Tan

. . Present

♦Appeared after the roll call

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Tingson Present Villacorta Present

Trenas Present Villegas Present

Uka Present

The President is present.

The roll call shows 33 Members responded to the call.

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of
a quorum.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.

MR. CALDERON. I move that we dispense with the
reading of the Journal of the previous session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we
dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous
session. (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

COMMUNICATIONS

Letter from Mr. Crispin C. Maslog, President of the
Philippine Association of the Philippine Association of
Communication Educators, College, Laguna, recom-
mending a broad-based ownership of mass media,
establishment of more community-based newspapers
and broadcast stations, Filipinization of mass media
ownership, and prohibition of cross-ownership of mass
media, among others.

(Communication No. 47 1 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

Letter from the Daughters of Mary Immaculate, Our
Lady of Remedios Circle, Malate Catholic Church, M. H.
del Pilar, Malate, Manila, recommending some measures
for the establishment of a moral regeneration of values
throughout the country.

(Communication No. 472 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

To the Committee on General Provisions.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
approve the Journal of the previous session.

the PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we
pprwe the Journal of the previous session? (Silence)

6 ^ hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I
proceed to the Reference of Business.

move that we

^here any objection? (Silence)
e Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of
Dusmess.

reference OF BUSINESS

following Proposed

Pre<tident Communications, the

President making the corresponding references:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 536, entitled:

TWENTY-EIGHT

THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL rOMMT<;«;]
BY ALLOWING RECONSIDERATION OF CONSTI
TIONAL PROPOSALS EMBODIED IN THE fIJ
DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE ITS
APPROVAL.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.
To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Jaime Hermida Ching, a contract
worker in Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, con-
taining his suggestions in the framing of the new Consti-
tution.

(Communication No. 473 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter jointly signed by Messrs. Horacio M. Montefrio,
Cesar P. Macasero, Arturo P. Casuga, and Pedro L.
Esteban, requesting inclusion in the Article on
Education, Science, Technology, Sports, Arts and
Culture of the Constitution the following proposed
provision: “THE STATE, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS SECTORS,
SHALL ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT AN
INTEGRATED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF
TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING FROM THE SECONDARY TO TERTIARY
LEVELS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE HUMAN RE-
SOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION.”

(Communication No. 474 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Letter from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., Deputy
Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Mala-
canang, transmitting the letter of Sgt. Jovenal B.
Giangan of PAF, Mactan Air Base, Lapulapu City, seek-
ing the abolition of the political party system.

(Communication No. 475 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and
Agencies.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Letter from Mr. Rolando Cimafranca of Chugum cor.
Abanao Street, Baguio City, seeking a definite provision
in the Constitution protecting the right to life of the
unborn from the moment of conception.

(Communication No. 476 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

Letter from Mr. Justino E. Honculada of 3 1 1 D. Alviola
Village, Butuan City, expressing apprehension over the
approval of a constitutional provision allowing illiterates
to vote.

(Communication No. 477 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights,
Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

Letter from Mr. Victor Gruta of Biriran, Juban, Sor-
sogon, submitting an unnumbered resolution of the
Biriran Irrigators’ Service Association, requesting
exemption of small landowners from the imple-
mentation of the land reform program.

(Communication No. 478 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Letter from Mr. Hilario L. de Pedro III, O.I.C. of Koro-
nadal, South Cotabato by the municipal government of
Koronadal, favoring, among others, the retention of
U.S. military bases, a bicameral legislature, election of
Congressmen by district, presidential type of govern-
ment, and the abolition of the death penalty.

(Communication No. 479 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Communication signed by Mr. Omar Mendoza of the
UP Science Research Foundation and three thousand
nine hundred thirty-five others with their respective
addresses, seeking the inclusion in the Constitution of
a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the
unborn from the moment of conception.

(Communication No. 480 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

Communication from Mr. Haji Jameel Ramli A. Noor of
38 Pangarungan Village, Marawi City, submitting for
consideration by the Constitutional Commission a
manuscript entitled; “Islamic Autonomous Govern-
ment or Federal State for the Muslims: Tlie Only
Acceptable Formula is Its Incorporation in the New
Constitution to Formally and Finally Integrate the
Muslims into the Philippine Body Politic.”

(Communication No. 481 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Local Governments.

Letter from Mr. Cesar V. Canchela, transmitting the
position paper of the United Architects of the Philip-
pines, CCP, Roxas Boulevard, Metro Manila, recom-
mending, among others, for inclusion in the Constitu-
tion the utilization of the services of Filipino profes-
sionals and consultants on government projects funded
by the Philippine government and from foreign loans
and .grants.

(Communication No. 482 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions
and Agencies.

Letter from Mr. Santiago B. Galang of 14 7th Avenue,
Cubao, Quezon City, expressmg apprehension over the
influx of the Chinese and their monopoly of businesses
in the Philippines.

(Communication No. 483 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

Letter from Mr. Isaias P. Costelo of 285 Picnic Ground,
Tugbungan, Zamboanga City, proposing, among others,
a presidential type of government with a bicameral
legislature and the creation of a Commission on Ap-
pointments.

(Communication No. 484 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Communication from Ms. Edna Desalapo of 2258 Int.

1 1-53 Leveriza, Malate, Manila and one hundred twenty
others from Sta. Ana, Pandacan, Leveriza and San
Andres Bukid, Manila, suggesting provisions on social
justice, housing, education, labor, family and women’s
rights, among others.

(Communication No. 485 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Letter from Mr. Erlindo P. Llanera of Villa Maria Sub-
division, Travesia, Guinobatan, Albay, suggesting a
preamble couched in the language of God-loving citizens
of a tree nation, a tour-year presidential term and
nonimmunity from suit of the President.

(Communication No. 486 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the Executive.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Communication from Ms. Trifona P. Macapanas for the
Ramis Barangay High School Students Organization,
Hinabangan, Samar, submitting resolutions proposing
the abolition of the National College Entrance Exam-
ination and allowing colleges and universities to
administer entrance examinations; and the adoption
of Tagalog as the medium of instruction.

(Communication No. 487 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Letter from Ms. Fe Samaniego for the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha’is of the Philippines, Inc., 1070
A. Roxas, Singalong, Manila, submitting proposals for
the State to inculcate in the individual the conviction
and consciousness of the essential unity of the human
race as the only viable standard for social and economic
justice, and for the State to provide free elementary
and high school education in public schools wherein
comparative religion shall be taught.

(Communication No. 488 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)

Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

MR. RAMA. I move that we take up the unfinished
consideration of the Article on Social Justice wliich is
now in the period of amendments.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection‘s (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The honorable Chairman and members of tlie Com-
mittee on Social Justice are requested to please occupy
the front table in order that we may proceed with the
continuation of the period of amendments.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 10:02 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

Utter from Messrs. Lito Urgino and Frank Padilla for
Families for Justice and Peace, 300 P. Guevarra, San
Juan, Metro Manila, submitting 5,830 signatures in
^pport of Resolution No. 272, introduced by the
Honorable Commissioners Nieva, Bacani, Munoz Palma,
gos, ascon, and Guingona, to incorporate in the
ons itution a separate article on the protection and
promotion of the rights of the family ; and recommend-
ing e approval of a provision which mandates the
protection of the hfe of the mother and the unborn
human life from the moment of conception.

~ Constitutional Commission

of 1986)

To the (Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and

Declaration of Principles.

Qjmmunicatmn from Ms. Maribel C. Purisima of th

Ministry of Trade and Industry and one thousand fi\

• twelve other petitioners, seeking to includ

^ P^^^ision obUging the State t

IZtV tL moment c

conception.

(Communication No. 490 - Constitutionai Coramissic

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

At 10:08 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, while the text of the
amendment of Commissioner Colayco to Section 3 is
still being xeroxed, I move that we proceed to Section
5 since there are no proponents of amendments for
Section 4.

May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog-
nized.

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, my amendment is
in connection with the second sentence of Section 5
which reads; “To this end, the State shall encourage
. . .” After the word “shall,” put a comma (,) and add
the words BY LAW then put a comma (,). So with my
amendment, the sentence will now read: “To this end,
the State shall, BY LAW, encourage and undertake the
just distribution . . .”

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may I call the
attention of Commissioner Jamir to the clause “as
Congress may prescribe.” Does the Commissioner not
feel that the clause adequately satisfies the require-
ment regarding the insertion of his amendment between
the words “the State” and “shall”? The clause “as
Congress may prescribe” is descriptive or restrictive
of the previous phrase.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. JAMIR. I believe so, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Suarez refer
to the clause “and other conditions as Congress may
prescribe” which would not necessitate the insertion
of the words “BY LAW” after “the State shall”?

MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Madam President.

We suggest that there must be a comma (,) before the
word “as.”

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, I am transposing my
amendment to the first sentence instead. So after the
word “shall,” it will read: “The State shall, BY LAW,
undertake a genuine agrarian ...”

MR. SUAREZ. I think there is merit in the trans-
position.

MR. JAMIR. Thank you.

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, we would like to call
attention to certain slight corrections. We have already
agreed to remove “genuine” as a qualifying word for
agrarian reform on the first line. Tile Committee had
already accepted this.

MR. JAMIR. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Jamir satisfied?

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, the whole sentence
would now read. The State shall, BY LAW, undertake
an agrarian reform program ...”

THE PRESIDENT. Can we now proceed to vote?

MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President, because the
amendment has been accepted by the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the
amendment proposed on the first line of the draft of
the committee report? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Davide be recognized to amend Section 5.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.

The amendment is very simple. On the third line of
Section 5, between the words “farmworkers” and “to,”
I propose to insert a comma (,) after “farmworkers”
followed by the phrase ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS
then put a comma (,) after it. And on the fourth line
after “till,” put a comma (,) so it will read: “and
regular farmworkers, ESPECIALLY THE LANDLESS,

to own directly or collectively the lands they till, OR,
in the case of other . . .”

MR. TADEO. Commissioner Davide, maaari bang
pakiliwanag lamang kung ano ang ibig sabiliin ng “land-
less”?

MR. DAVIDE. The term “landless” refers to the
regular farm workers or the farmers who do not own
lands of their own. So, priority must be given to them,
because the farmers and regular farm workers men-
tioned here may or may not have lands of their own,
and I want priority to be given to the landless of these
farmers and regular farm workers.

MR. TADEO. Marahil mas magaling kung ipaliliwa-
nag natin ito nang mabuti. Ang programa nitong naka-
raan sa ilalim ni Ginoong Marcos ay tinawag na “land
for the tillers.” Ngunit noong panahon ni Presidente
Magsaysay, tinawag naman itong “land for the landless.”
Ang mga farmers at regular farm workers ay parehong
landless.

MR. DAVIDE. No, not necessarily. In the course
of my interpellation, the Gentleman admitted that if
one has a small land but works on the land of ano-
ther during the off-season, he may be entitled to get
that particular land of another, in addition to his own.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, that phrase may
not be in the contemplation of the Committee because
it means, as Commissioner Davide has said, that some-
body who already has land and may be helping his
neighbor by being a hired manager of the adjoining
lot, would still be entitled to acquire that adjoining lot
under the agrarian reform program. To include the land-
less, meaning even those who already have land, to be
beneficiaries under the agrarian reform program is not
the intent of the Committee.

MR. DAVIDE. No, that was not the answer of Com-
missioner Tadeo to my question before.

MR. TADEO. Commissioner Monsod, palagay ko
ay mayroong katuwiran si Commissioner Davide. Ang
tinutukoy niya ay ang mga farmers and regular farm
workers na walang sariling pag-aari at nagsasaka pa sa
iba.

MR. DAVIDE. That is correct.

MR. TADEO. Ang binibigyan ng priority ay iyong
landless farmers and regular farm workers na walang
sariling lupang sinasaka at nakikisaka pa sa iba.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, I think that should really be
the thrust of land reform.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, but there is a division in the
Committee. When we say “especially the landless,”

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

that suggests that even those who already have land
would still be beneficiaries.

MR. DAVIDE. Let us just clarify this for the record.
What really is the objective of land reform? Is it to give
priority to the landless and should not be applied to
farm workers and farmers who already have lands of
their own?

MR. TADEO. I agree with Commissioner Davide.

MR. DAVIDE. So, I think the Commission will have
to decide on this particular issue — the scope of agrarian
reform.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, may I offer
an amendment to the amendment of' Commissioner
Davide?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Davide
accept an amendment by placing the word “LAND-
LESS” between “regular” and “farmworkers” so that
it will read: “on the basic right of farmers and regular
LANDLESS farmworkers. . .”

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment will not remedy the
apparent conflict in the interpretation, because under
that particular interpretation, it would apply only to
regular landless farm workers but not to farmers with-
out lands of their own. So, I really would seek a definite
stand of the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. In other words. Commissioner
Davide does not accept the proposed amendment?

MR. DAVIDE. No, because it will remedy only
partly, not the entire concept of land reform.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 10:20 a.m.

resumption of session

At 10:21 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod will please
proceed.

MR. MONSOD. We have arrived at a formulation
here, so instead of saying “ESPECIALLY THE LAND-
LESS,” we will say WHO ARE LANDLESS.

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment will be placed after
“farmworkers,” so instead of “ESPECIALLY THE
LANDLESS,” it should be “WHO ARE LANDLESS”?

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. So, it will now read; “The State shall
by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded
on the basic right of farmers and regular farmworkers
WHO ARE LANDLESS to own directly or collective-
ly . . .”

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. I agree. Madam President, and there
should be a comma (,) after “till” on the fourth line.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, just a question
for clarification.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Does the phrase “WHO ARE LAND-
LESS” modify both farmers and regular farm workers?

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you.

MR. MONSOD. Maybe between the words “LAND-
LESS” and “to,” we should put a comma (,) so that
it refers to “farmworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS, ...”

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. How is that now? Will Commis-
sioner Monsod please repeat.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the first part of
Section 5 will now read: “The State shall by law under-
take an agrarian reform program founded on the basic
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, WHO ARE
LANDLESS, to own directly. . .”

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other proposed
amendment on this first sentence so that we can vote
on this?

Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, for the sake of
our being able to explain it adequately to the people
to whom we shall be explaining this, may I know how
we justify the basic right of farmers and regular farm
workers who are landless to own directly or collectively
the land they till? I do not see any difficulty in saying
that the farmers and farm workers have a right to some
property because that is needed for dignified living.
That they should have a basic right precisely to the

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

land they till is, however, something I do not see very
clearly and I would have to explain that to the people.

1 see this distribution and redistribution as an
exigency of the common good and, hence, instead of
affirming that this is founded on the basic right of
farmers and farm workers who are landless to own the
land they till, I would rather say that it is “because
the common good so requires it.” That would be an
amendment 1 would like to introduce in case I do not
get a satisfactory explanation.

In other words, I am not against their owning directly
or collectively the land they till. I think that is an
imperative; I think that is necessary. What I do not see
so clearly is that that action of the government should
be premised on the basic right of the farmers or the
farm workers who are landless to own precisely the
land they till.

MS. NIEVA. So, would the Bishop suggest that the
phrase “founded on tlie basic right of farmers” be
replaced by another phrase?

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, and instead I suggest' “ON
ACCOUNT OF THE EXIGENCY OF THE COMMON
GOOD, the State shall undertake an agrarian reform
program so that farmers and regular farmworkers
WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly or collectively
the land they till.”

MR. TADEO. Commissioner Bacani, dati itong
“primacy,” ngunit pumayag na rin kami sa inyong
mungkahi sa isang pagpupulong ng Committee na gawin
natin itong “basic right.”

BISHOP BACANI. Hindi po ako ang nagmungkahi
noon. Present ako, pero hindi ako ang nagmungkahi
noon. Si Commissioner Monsod yata ang nagmungkahi
noon.

MR. TADEO. This is what “basic right” means -
it is a principle in agrarian reform whereby those who
actually till the land have the supremacy to own the
same in a manner that is expeditious and/or in common
with others. Ang mismong nagtatrabaho sa bukid, ang
magsasaka, ay mayroong pangunahing karapatan or first
opportunity na magmay-ari at unang dapat makinabang
sa bunga ng kanUang pagod at pawis. Ito po kasi ang
pangunahing principle at objective ng agrarian reform.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I do not deny
that that is the principle. What I would like to know
is how we will Justify that principle since it is not self-
evident? That is what I am trying to say. It is not a
self-evident principle that they should own precisely
the land they till. Tliat they should have a primacy
of right to the fruits is evident to me. That they should
have also a basic right to some property is evident to
me. But that they should have a basic right precisely
to this land that they till is not as evident to me, and

that is why I am not rejecting it as yet. I am asking for
an explanation of that not self-evident principle.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-
nized.

MS. AQUINO. I would yield to Commissioner
Monsod, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MON SOD. Madam President, let me just give
an example and see whether that concretizes what the
Commissioner is talking about.

Let us say that Juan is tilling the land of Jose. In
the case of Jose, he may be one of those small land-
owners allowed to keep their land under the retention
limits as Commissioner de los Reyes said today. Now,
Juan still has a right to own land because he is a tiller
and he is landless and, perhaps, in such an instance, he
would have a priority to public land that can be alien-
ated. Is that what the Commissioner means?

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. In other words, that is it.
When we say that farmers have the basic right to own
the land they till, it means that is true in each and every
circumstance without any exception. So that when
they till a certain land and they fall within this category,
then they can claim the right to own that land and there
is no possibility of denying that claim whatsoever.

MR. MONSOD. This is just a trial formulation to see
if it reflects the Bishop’s thinking. Suppose we amend
the first part of this paragraph to read; “The State shall
by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded
on the basic right of tillers and regular farmworkers,
who are landless, to own land directly or collectively or,
in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share
of the fruits thereof.”

BISHOP BACANI. It does not seem to meet what I
am trying to say. Can we really, upon having put this
in the Constitution, explain this? I think this is one of
the instances in the Constitution where we affirm
something theoretical.

MR. MONSOD. But that formulation took out pre-
cisely the phrase “the lands they till” but recognizes
that a tiller who is landless has a right to own land.
I am only trying to see if this is what the Bishop has
in mind, but this is certainly not the position of the
Committee.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, that would be what I mean
when I say that they are entitled to some land, and
they are entitled even principally to the fruits of that
land but not necessarily entitled to own the land they
till.

THURSDAY, AUC^UST 7, 1986

MR. MONSOD. Yes, now we understand the point
of the Commissioner, and maybe that is something for
the Committee as a whole to consider.

BISHOP BACANI. So, may I propose that as an
amendment — the Commissioner’s own formulation
which is a happy one for me and which,I think, meets
the exigencies of land reform.

THE PRESIDENT. I think our difficulty is with the
interpretation of Commissioner Bacani that the phrase
“basic right” means an unquaUfied and plenary right
to claim.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. In other words, when we
speak of a basic right, then we have a basic right to
property or a basic right to life.

MS. AQUINO. Would it satisfy the Commissioner
if we find an alternative to the phrase “basic right”
or to the word “right,” if only to approximate that
kind of a difficulty and address the problem of that
interpretation?

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. I would argue for something
like “a great appropriateness.” After “appropriateness”

I do not know how to word it. There is really a great
appropriateness for them to own the land they till. Or
maybe we can even speak of an imperative. That is
why on account of the common good there is that
imperative. I do not argue against the fact that they
must own land.

MR. MONSOD. In other words, the Commissioner
does not want a strict absolute correspondence between
the land that is being actually tilled and the right to
own by a tiller.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, but they ought to have the
right to own some land and the government must
guarantee that to them.

MR. BE.NGZON. In other words, what the Com-
missioner is saying is that it does not automatically
mean that they have that basic right to own the land
that they specifically till.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, that is it; not in all cases.
Ihe way it is fomiulated now does not seem to admit
of any exception, if it is a basic right.

MR. BENGZON. We understand that now. Would
the Commissioner like to propose that amendment so
that the Committee can react to it?

BISHOP BACANI. Yes. May I propose the formula-
tion of Commissioner Monsod which, 1 think, expresses
it.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas desires
to make some comments on this.

MR. VILLEGAS. Could I contribute some insights
into the principle behind agrarian reform? In the 1973
Constitution, Article XIV, Section 1 3 states:

The Batasang Pambansa may authorize, upon payment
of just compensation, the expropriation of private land to
be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to
deserving citizens.

If we will remember, this really made constitutional
history because it went beyond the principle of eminent
domain - that the State can expropriate lands in small
lots for distribution to deserving citizens. But the
principle behind this had nothing to do with the basic
right of tillers to own the land they till. This was pre-
mised on precisely the exigencies of the common
good. The social function of property which requires
that in specific circumstances when political and social
stability is threatened, the government or the State lias,
with just compensation, the right to expropriate lands.

I completely share the fears of Commissioner Bacani
about stating a basic right, and I would be more com-
fortable if another reason were cited. I am very much in
favor of giving lands to small farmers. I think that is a
requirement of political, social and economic stability.
But I think we are treading on dangerous grounds in
articulating a certain basic right. Let us also keep in
mind that there are certain countries like Taiwan which
in 20 years or so, in one generation, has literally gone
the full circle and is now implementing an agrarian
reform program which is exactly the opposite — they
are now trying to consolidate their small farms because
the common good dictates that they should not have
small farms anymore.

A study of Taiwan in 1986 will show us their land
reform program which is completely the opposite of
what they implemented in the 1950s because they
realized that the common good requires that they do
not grow sugar in one-hectare properties, but should
start to grow more and more in large-scale farming.
We cannot constitutionalize certain provisions which
are requirements of the common good today, but which
20 years from now may be completely the opposite.

That is why I am very much in favor of this provision
making sure that today, in 1 986, the millions of landless
farmers should have land that they can till which they
can call their own, but let us be very careful about
constitutionalizing that kind of an exigency of the
common good today which may not be an exigency of
the common good in the year 2000.

MS. NIEVA. Is Commissioner Villegas proposing an
amendment?

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, I propose an expression like
“because of the requirements of the common good.”

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. TADEO. Madam President, gusto ko lang pong
magpaliwanag.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tadeo is recog-
nized.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:11 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. TADEO. Kung napapansin ninyo, nakalagay dito
ang pariralang: “to own directly or collectively,” at
sinasabi ninyong nagsasaad ang “collectively” ng
common good. Ngunit mayroon pang mga lupain — at
batay iyan sa uri ng pananim, gaya ng mais at bigas — na
kinakailangang ariin mo tulad ng tricycle upang maalaga-
an mong maigi. Ngunit actually liindi tayo titigil doon.
Alam naman nating ang hiwa-hiwalay at pira-pirasong
pagsasaka ay hindi produktibong pagsasaka. Kaya
tutungo rin tayo roon sa yugto ng cooperative farming
o collective farming at makakamtan din natin ang
common good. Actually, hindi pa kayang tanggapin ng
magbubukid sa kasalukuyan ang sama-samang pagma-
may-ari, iyong sinasabi nating common good. For
change to endure, the idea of the cooperative farm must
come from within, not merely imposed on them.

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. The common good and collective
farming are not synonymous, so there is no corre-
spondence between the use of the common good and
the advocacy for collective farming. The common good
is a high principle which 1 suggest as an alternative to
the phrase “a basic right.” And definitely, as I said, I do
not think we have reasons to quarrel over the final
result. The linal result should be that small farmers
today able to own their one-hectare, two-hectare,
three-hectare lots planted to corn, coconut, cacao and
other types of crops. So, there is no question about
that.

MR. BENGZON. Would Commissioner Villegas agree
to a fonnulation being made by Commissioner Monsod
which will coordinate and correlate with the amend-
ment y Comm.issioner Bacani which states

that; OF THE COMMON GOOD

the STATE SHALL BY LAW UNDERTAKE AGRA-
RIAN REFORM PROGRAM FOUNDED ON THE

basic right of farmers and regular
farmworkers, who are TILLERS AND LAND-
LESS, TO OWN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY. . .”

In other words, we inject the thought of the Com-
missionei to the amendment of Commissioner Bacani.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the proponents have
reached a meeting of minds, so may I call on Com-
missioner Bacani to present the basic amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, after I present
my amendment, the Committee itself will explain the
meaning of a very important word which we have agreed
upon to make it official.

The amendment by deletion simply goes this way:
“The State shall BY LAW undertake AN agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular
faniiworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly
or collectively the lands they till . . .”

Madam President, a very vital explanation is on the
word “right” and the elimination of the word “basic.”

I would like that to come from the Committee itself
since we already agreed on this.

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair wishes to be clarified
with regard to the proposed amendment of Commis-
sioner Bacani. In other words, it is still the same, except
for the elimination of the word “basic.”

BISHOP BACANI. The elimination of the word
“basic” has left the word “right” being understood in a
looser sense than one might first construe upon seeing
it. And that is why I am asking the Committee to give
that explanation.

THE PRESIDENT. And is the Commissioner’s pro-
posed amendment different now from the original
version that was given to us by Commissioner Monsod?
We just want to clarify that.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, Madam President, but the
sense approximates that.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, that formulation
does not really mean an absolute correspondence be-
cause that “right” is also subject to the second sentence
which says, “subject to such priorities, retention limits
and other conditions as Congress may prescribe.” How-
ever, the Committee feels that it is important to retain
the words “the lands they till” because really in
practice that would be the preferential route as far as
identification of the land is concerned.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MS. AQUINO. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. The session is suspended. JHE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-

It was 10:42 a.m. nized.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MS. AQUINO. The deletion of the term “basic” is
best understood in the context of the proposal of
Commissioners Romulo and de los Reyes, which will be
an insertion of a sentence after the word “compensa-
tion.” However, preliminarily, it is the Committee’s
position that the deletion of the term “basic” and the
retention of the word “right” means that the polar
star - when we expound the principle of land reform—
is that the farmer has a right to the land he tills, but this
is not an immutable right. In other words, his claim of
ownership does not automatically pertain or correspond
to the same land that he is actually and physically till-
ing. It would yield to the limitations and adjustments
provided for in the second sentence of the first para-
graph, specifically the “retention limits” and the
amendments of Commissioners Romulo and de los
Reyes, which the Committee is accepting.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I think that is
the official sense and it translates the meaning that was
sought for in the amendment before, and that is why
that is presented in this form now.

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Villegas
say?

MR. TINGSON. I should like very much to support
that amendment because I feel that that is very neces-
sary in order for the small landowners of our country
to feel that they are neither ignored nor their basic
rights totally neglected. I understand. Madam President,
that in one of the Supreme Court decisions, “small
landowners” made references to the hardworking and
frugal people who in a lifetime of sacrifice gathered
their pitiful little savings and purchased small farms to
supplement the inadequate pensions from the Govern-
ment Service Insurance System or the Social Security
System. So I would like to go on record that 1 am in
favor of that amendment and I appreciate very much
the privilege of being part of that amendment.

MR. REGALADO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. REGALADO. Will Commissioner de los Reyes
accept an amendment to the amendment by eliminat-
ing the word “FAMILY” - just say “SMALL LAND-
OWNERS,” not necessarily “SMALL FAMILY LAND-
OWNERS.”

MR. VILLEGAS. I accept the formulation. Madam
President.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just pouit
out two things here: In the first sentence, the ComS
tee has already accepted the term “BY LAW” which was
introduced by Commissioner Jamir; in the second
sentence, we have formulated the phrase “as Congress
may prescribe.” This sentence is really a long sentence
and even includes the consideration of whatever law
Congress shall prescribe.

THE PRESIDENT. So, this is now accepted by the
Committee.

♦u AQUINO. Madam President, may we request
a ommissioner de los Reyes be recognized to
propose an amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.

heinf H amendment jointly

being submitted by Commissioners Romulo, Monsod

and Tingson. It is an additional sentence after the word

^ fallows: THE

STATE SHALL RESPECT THE RICHtq nc cAyrAi t

FAMILY LANDOWNERS IN THE DETERMNAxtoN

OF THE RETENTION LIMITS. i lUN

MR. TINGSON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog-
nised.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Inasmuch as the Committee
has already stated in advance that it has accepted my
amendment, I would like to throw it to the Committee,
although personally I have no objection to the elimina-
tion of the word “FAMILY.”

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say to
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado?

MS. AQUINO. The Chairperson initially manifested
the Committee’s acceptance of the amendment to the
amendment; however, we wish to clarify that our refer-
ence to small landowners does not necessarily mean that
they should be owner-cultivators, according to the
definition that we have adopted. In other words, small
landowners here who are entitled to State protection do
not necessarily refer only to owner-cultivators. How-
ever, there is one basic principle which should be
respected and which we would accommodate — that the
tenancy relationship be abolished. This is the basic
principle of all land reform codes presently in effect.

MR. DE LOS REYES. It is in that spirit that this
amendment is being offered.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may Commis-
sioner de los Reyes answer just one question?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. DE CASTRO. What does the Commissioner
mean by “small landowners”? How big is the land
owned?

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. DE LOS REYES. That will be as determined by
law, although at present the retention limit, I under-
stand, is seven hectares.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, this section would
now include or extend its coverage to all agricultural
lands. So, we feel that Congress will have a better op-
portunity to define not only limits for land but for
specific types of land or crops, even perhaps suitable to
different areas, because there are different conditions
for different crops in different areas. We do not want
to preempt Congress on this, although the intent is quite
clear in the provision where we are referring to “small,”
and it is up to Congress to define “small” in specific
instances.

MR. TINGSON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog-
nized.

MR. TINGSON. I do understand that there is a case
entitled Nilo v.s. Court of Appeals, whereby the case
states that “small landowners” are referred to as having
24 hectares or less. Is that true to coconut?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the Committee
would just like to clarify that there may be cases defin-
ing “small,” but since the coverage of this Article is
wider than it was before, there would be need for
additional congressional clarification of that point.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. The question of defining “small”
in terms of absolute figures is a tricky business because
it depends on the number of variables, like soil, climate,
and all that. In any case, I think the provision, as for-
mulated, provides us some criteria, and these are subject
to or shall take into account ecological, developmental
or equity considerations. We cannot be definite as to
sizes, with respect to rice, corn or whatever crops, be-
cause these are variable, and this is proven by researches
worldwide.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. JAMIR. Parliamentary inquiry. Madam Pres-
ident.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner J amir is recognized.

MR. JAMIR. May I know from the Committee the
exact meaning of the words “agricultural lands.” I ask
this question because our Supreme Court considers even
residential lands as part of the agricultural lands. Even
our 1973 Constitution divides lands into agricultural,
mineral, and forest lands. So, I would like an authorita-
tive definition from the Committee, if that is possible.

MR. TADEO. Ayon sa aklat ni Commissioner Nolledo,
ang Principles of Agrarian Reforms, Cooperatives and
Taxation, ang definition ng agricultural land sa ilalim ng
Section 166, RA 3844, ay land devoted to any growth
including, but not limited to, crop lands, saltbeds, fish-
ponds, idle land and abandoned land.

MR. JAMIR. So, the provision of RA 3844 cited by
the Gentleman is a definition of agricultural lands by
the Committee.

Thank you.

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog-
nized.

MR. PADILLA. I heard from Commissioner Aquino
that there is absolute prohibition or abolition of the
system of tenancy. I know that under RA 3844, some
lands devoted to rice and com were subject to land
reform, if there is a tenancy relation but not when there
are farm laborers. In my opinion. Madam President, the
position of a tenant, who since the time of President
Quezon was given 70 percent of the produce of rice
land, is better or preferable to a farm laborer who only
receives a minimum wage. The tenant who receives 70
percent of the produce is, in effect, an industrial partner
who contributes his labor and yet receives the greater
portion of the harvest; whereas a farm laborer does not
share in the productive income of the farm but is only
entitled to a minimum wage.

I cannot understand why under RA 3844, there was
preference for the farm laborer and discrimination
against tenancy. In my opinion, the status of a tenant
as an industrial partner is higher and better than a mere
farm laborer who does not share in the profits of the
farm but is only paid a minimum wage. So, I am sur-
prised why there should be a statement that the land
reform is based on absolute abolition of the tenancy
relation in preference for some farms with farm
laborers. Madam President, that was the loophole in the
correct implementation of the land reform program.
There were certain landowners whp were clever enough
to make it appear that their tenants who are their
industrial partners of their farm workers in the produc-
tion of rice and corn were only farm laborers, and,
therefore, no longer subject to land reform: whereas
those who acknowledge the true fact that they had
tenants as their industrial partners were subject to land
reform.

THURSDAY. AUGUST 7, 1986

So, I would like the Committee to respond whether
the real intention is to abolish absolutely the tenancy
relation because it is a social evil, because in my
opinion, a tenant has a better and a higher relation than
that of a mere farm laborer.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, I believe that is what the
Committee and I mean.

MR. RODRIGO. Regular farm workers, who are land-
less, are regular workers in somebody else’s farm?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, we agree that there
may be instances of share tenancy where the tenant
might actually receive more than if he were a mere
employee. However, the system of tenancy is looked
upon as the source of many evils, although not neces-
sarily evil per se. How we want to solve the situation is
the phrase in the first sentence where we talk about
farm workers who have a right to receive a just share of
the fruits thereof. We look at this as a solution to the
question on whether they really end up in a worse
situation by changing the system from tenancy relation
to an employee-relation because then the concept of an
industrial employee will come in when that employee
receives a just share of the fruits thereof. If we notice,
this is a parallel clause in the subsection on Labor

because m a way there is a parallel situation in those
two cases.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is a pending
^endment which has been accepted by the Commit-
Tu- proponent is insisting that it be voted on.

his IS the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, that is also the meaning.

MR. RODRIGO. Let us say I own a fann, but instead
of hiring regular farm workers, I hire planters during the
planting season. Then I hire harvesters during the
harvest season and I hire another group of threshers.
These are not regular farm workers, are they?

BISHOP BACANI. They do not fall under the term
“regular farm workers.”

MR. RODRIGO. And they are not farmers?

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, in the sense given here.

MR. RODRIGO. So if I am the owner, and I want to
evade this provision, all I have to do is not to hire
regular farm workers.

BISHOP BACANI. That case will then have to fall
under the following clause: “in the case of other farm
workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.”

will first approve the amend- MR. RODRIGO. Yes, but those other workers are not

cAnf ° omniissioner Bacani with respect to the first given the right to own the land. Is that it?
senience.

MR. DE LOS REYES. I
objection.

am not insisting. There is no

BISHOP BACANI. Yes.
MS. NIEVA. That is right.

“Tif ^ Bacani amendment reads this '

ine state shall by law undertake an agrarian re

f3ri. wS ^ght of farmers and re;

armworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS to own din

farmwnV'^^ V the lands they till or, in the case of c
famworkers, to receive a just share of the fmits t

MR. RODRIGO. I was just talking to somebody from
Quezon Province, and he told me that in coconut areas
there are no farmers. Is this right? He said there are no
farmers in coconut areas because they do not plow
every year, they do not plant yearly but they just plant
once and then wait for the coconut to grow. There are
only coconut watchers or coconut pickers.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-

BISHOP BACANI. I myself would not be able to .
answer that. May I refer this to the Committee, Com-
missioner Rodrigo?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. RODRIGO. The ones who are covered b^
sentence are farmers and regular farm workers wh
iBiidlcss. What is the proponent’s concept of a f'
who does not own land? Is he somebody who '
another person’s land? Is that correct?

MR. RODRIGO. Yes.

MR. TADEO Commissioner Rodrigo, kapag sinabi
nating “farmer, mayroong tenancy relation na tinutu-
koy. Ang ibig sabihin ng tenancy relation, mayroon
kang rental na ibinibigay sa iyong panginoon na inay-ari
ng lupa. Sa ilalim ng niyugan, kapag tayo’y naghati, ang
two-thirds ay sa panginoong may lupa at one-third sa
magsasaka. Ito ang tinatawag na rental na ibinigay; may-
roong tenancy relation. Hindi natin puwedeng sabihin
ito dahil batay dito sa isang thesis na ginawa ni Col.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Virgilio David, sinasabi niya na mayroong 515,000 na
tenant farmer families ang nasasangkot na mayroong
sharing. Ang hatian po kasi sa niyugan, one-third, two-
thirds — two-thirds sa panig ng panginoong may lupa at
one-tliird sa panig ng tenant.

MR. RODRIGO. Samakatuwid, ang ibig bang sabihin
ng “tenancy” ay “crop sharing”? Kung mayroong “crop
sharing,” iyan ba ang kahulugan ng tenancy? Kapag ako
ang mayroong plantation ng coconut, at aalisin ko ang
crop sharing . . . susuwelduhan ko lang ang mga pipitas
ng niyog at wala na bang tenancy?

MR. TADEO. Wala pong tenancy. Babagsak sila sa
farm workers.

MR. RODRIGO. Ngayon, sapagkat walang tenancy,
ang karapatan lamang ng farm workers ay “just share.”
Wala silang karapatang magmay-ari noong lupa.

MR. TADEO. Ngunit kung regular ang participation
ng farm workers, primary sa production.

MR. RODRIGO. Kung regular. Ngunit kung bHang
may-ari ng lupa, hindi ko gagawing regular at uupa ako
ngayon ng isang grupo. Sa isang taon, uupa naman ako
ng ibang grupo. Hindi magiging regular. Samakatuwid,
hindi babagsak sa kategoriya ng “tenancy,” kayat hindi
sila maaaring magmay-ari ng lupa. Ganoon po ba?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, we are instituting
here a new provision which will take effect upon"* rati-
fication. In that instance, there is already a history to
look at. When we say that a particular piece of land
comes under the agrarian reform provisions of the
Constitution, then we can also look into the history of
the relationship between that owner and the farm
worker as defined over the years. In other words.
Madam President, that landowner may not, upon ratifi-
cation, change their relationship to get around the law
because, after all, there would be records on what the
relationship was.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Parang maganda yata ang tanong
ni Commissioner Rodrigo. Doon sa deliberations,
lumabas ang punto na ang sacada ay hindi kasama sa
tinatawag na “farm workers.” Nabanggit ni Com-
missioner Rodrigo na ang principle diyan ay mangyaya-
ring irregular — seasonal worker na maaaring palitan at
mas nakakahawig ng sacada kaysa isang regular farm
worker. Ito ang sinasabi niya na maaaring loophole ng
ganoong provision. That is the reason why Commission-
er Monsod answered that the history of the relationship
should be a safeguard against this possibility of circum-

venting that provision of a landlord changing his rela-
tionship with the tenants upon ratification of the
Constitution. I think that is an important consideration.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. Samakatuwid, ang isang hahmbawa
nito ay iyong isang may-ari ng coconut plantation at ang
kanyang pasunod sa kanyang mga trabahador ay “crop
sharing” at iyan ay ipmasiya niyang palitan at gawing
suwelduhan. Halimbawang limang taon nang suweldu-
han? Titingnan pa rin ba ang history? At kung bago
noong nakaraang limang taon, ang pasunod ay crop
sharing, his workers will come under tlie first category'
instead of under the second category. Ga:ioon ba?

BISHOP BACANI. In that case, there would be no
practical difference because if they escape the tenn
“farmers” they would, under that circumstance, fall
under regular farm workers.

MR. RODRIGO. If there is crop sharing.

BISHOP BACANI. No, if there is no crop sharing and
they are paid for coming regularly, they would fall
under the category of regular farm workers.

MR. RODRIGO. Pero ang sinasabi ko nga, kung ako
ay nagbabayad lamang ng pipitas, hindi ako kukuha ng
mga regular na pipitas. Madali naman ang pumitas ng
niyog. Kayat kukuha ako ng iba’t ibang tagapitas nang
hindi maging regular ang tnga ito.

MR. MONSOD. I think the example of the Com-
missioner regarding workers who have been seasonal
workers for the past five years would fall under the
second part where they are entitled to receive a just
share of the fruits.

MR. RODRIGO. Yes.

MR. MONSOD. If upon ratification of the Constitu-
tion a change in the relationship of a regular farm
worker is made, it is quite obvious in that instance that
the intent is to go around the law and, therefore, the
facts would speak for themselves.

MR. RODRIGO. Suppose, before ratification, nabali-
taan doon sa Quezon na mayroong pinag-uusapang
probisyon ang Con-Corn, maaaring bago ma-ratify ang
Constitution ay papalitan nila ang pasunod sa mga
trabahador nila. At hindi lang iyan, sinabi sa akin ni
Ginoong Quintana, ex-Batasan MP, na maaaring kumam-
panya silang huwag aprubahan ang Constitution sa
Quezon Province. Iyan ay isipin dm natin.

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. RODRIGO. Narinig ni Commissioner Ople.
Nandito si Ginoong Quintana kangina.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. MONSOD. We realize, Madam President, that
there will be some gray areas here. There will always be
gray areas when we come out with an Article like this.
With respect to the concerns of ex-Batasan MP Quin-
tana, one reason why the Committee is willing to accept
the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes is that we
are hoping that that would solve some of his concerns.

MR. RODRIGO. There is another thing which I want
to clarify. Do we mean to say that “crop sharing” is
identical with the word “tenancy,” that whenever there
is “crop sharing,” there is “tenancy”?

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Tadeo answer
that question?

MR. RODRIGO. Is “tenancy” synonymous with
“crop sharing”? In many advanced countries of the
world, even in the United States, there is crop sharing. If
we now say that crop sharing means tenancy, that

would not be fair because crop sharing is unlike
tenancy.

MR. TADEO. Kung mayroong crop sharing, ay
mayroong tenancy relation.

MR. RODRIGO. Kahit doon sa atin sa Bulacan ay
mayroong tinatawag na “hunos sa gapas, hunos sa
anun. ng mga gagapas, sa halip na bayaran ng salapi
y mayroong natatanggap na hunos. At ang mga nagta-
bayaran ng salapi, mayroong hunos sa
fp c umaani binibigyan sDa ng kaunting kapar-

u nagkakaroon ng crop sharing,

ivrmo sabihin niyan ay iyong mga gumapas at

y g mga nagtanim ay mayroon ng tenancy relation?

Wanlf tadeo. lyon pala ang ibig ninyong sabihin

MR. RODRIGO. Hindi. Isang
mayroon pang iba.

halimbawa lang iyan.

T^ma po iyan. Hindi ko lang k
akikita kung ano iyong iniisip ninyo tungkol sa cr

mga hunos at gapas at giik
amu a sa atin sa Bulacan, sa isang daan at da

^>ig ibinibigay sa mai
gagapas at amm na kaban sa gumigiik. Hindi po iyon a
ibig kong sabilung crop sharing. Ang ibig ko po
sabihm ng crop sharing na tinugon ko po L ^yo 1
ngma ay iyong binibigyan kita ne rental » - ^ ^
ang ibig kong sabihin kanginrSn 1 p " tom !y
ang tinatawag naming mga hired laborers..

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. I wanted to put a question to Com-
missioner Rodrigo, and, perhaps, also to the Committee,

depending on his answers. There is no necessary correla-
tion between tenancy and crop sharing, depending on
how you define crop sharing.

Dito po sa palayan at maisan ngayon, ang nakakara-
ming nabiyayaan ng reporma sa lupa ay hindi iyong
tumanggap ng CLT na titulo. Iyon siguro ay mga labin-
limang porsiyento lamang. Iyong walumpu’t limang
porsiyento, iyon ang mga dating tenants na ngayon
ay nauwi sa leasehold. Mayroon ding matatawag na
sharing iyan — 75-25. Datapwa’t ang kaibahan, itong
dating tenant, bagamat hindi siyang may-ari, siya
ngayon ang complete manager ng kaniyang sinasaka.
Samakatuwid ay hindi na tenant pero nagbabayad pa
rin ng katumbas ng dalawampu’t limang porsiyento
noong ani. Iyong leasehold, sa aming paningin, mas
mataas ang naging antas ngayon kaysa doon sa magsa-
saka lamang.

MR. RODRIGO. Sang-ayon ako riyan, sapagkat ang
inam noong “leasehold” ay ang ibinabayad na buwis ng
magsasaka ay eksaktong halaga. Kayat, pag pinalaki
niya ang ani noong kaniyang bukid, lahat ng madadag-
dag na ani ay kanya na. Hindi katulad ng “crop
sharing.” Nadagdagan ang ani, nadagdagan din ang
kaparte ng may-ari. Pero sa leasehold may tiyak na
ibabayad.

Kapag nadagdagan ang ani, pag nagmasipag ang
magsasaka, nagtanim ng vegetables, nagtanim ng ibang
mga bagay sa lupa, ang lahat ay kanya.

MR. OPLE. Hindi lang iyon, kundi lahat ng manage-
ment decision ay nasa kamay ng nasa leasehold. Hindi
katulad ng tenant na mayroong katiwalang araw-araw
ay nag-uutos sa iyo kung ano ang gagawin mo. Samaka-
tuwid, itatanong ko lamang sa Komite, ito bang lease-
hold bilang isang uri ng land tenure ay kabilang dito sa
agrarian reform na ating pinag-uusapan?

MR. TADEO. Magandang katanungan. Commissioner
Ople. Gusto ko lang liwanagin ang ibig sabiliin ng share
tenancy — iyong 50-50, 60-40, 55-45, 70-30. Ito hong
leasehold ay kasama rito sa ating pinag-uusapan dahil sa
sinasabi nating retention limit, lalo na iyong hindi
owner-cultivator, na nilinaw kanina ni Commissioner
Aquino. Halimbawa, sabihin natin na ang gamitin natin
ay ang P.D. No. 27, na ang seven hectares below ang
maaaring iwan sa isang panginoong may lupa. Kaya
iyong maiiwan sa kanya na seven hectares and below ay
under leasehold system, kaya kasama rito ang leasehold
system, dahil doon sa abolition ng share tenancy.

MR. OPLE. Magandang balita iyan para sa maraming
mga tenants ngayon na ang unang hakbang sa kanilang
liberasyon marahil ay hindi iyong tahasan o tandisan
na siyang magiging may-ari ng lupa, kung hindi maaaring
nandiyan sa intermediate stage, sa kalagitnaan na lease-
hold muna; hindi siya ang may-ari, datapwat siya ang

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

may poder, siya ang manager, siya ang nagdedesisyon
tungkol sa kanyang buhay.

Salamat po, Ginang Pangulo.

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you very much, Com-
missioner Ople. Now, just one more question. I had
already asked this cursorily in a past session. I refer to
the word “own” which 1 consider a very important
word. I would not want to raise false hopes among our
farmers. Ownership, as it is defined now in civil law, has
different rights attached to it: jus posidendi, the right
to possess; jus utendi, the right to a use; jus fruendi,
the right to the fruits; and jus disponendi, the right to
dispose ... I would discard jus abutendi or the right
to consume the thing by its use, because it is anti-
social. But then since we say that the farmers will own
the land they till, can they dispose of it or can they sell
it?

MS. AQUINO. To the best of my knowledge, all of
the laws pertaining to the implementation of land
reform as a policy of the government would program
and limit the right of a beneficiary-farmer who has been
given an Operation Land Transfer or a certificate of
land transfer and would have delimited options in imme-
diate disposition of the property. Even with the Home-
stead Act, one is not allowed to dispose a homestead
that has been granted to him within a period of 50 years
from the period or from the time it was granted. It may
be a question of programming or regulating or de-
limiting prerogatives of disposition. It is provided by
law.

MR. RODRIGO. In other words, may Congress limit
the farmer’s right to sell, to dispose, even to mortgage
the land?

MS. AQUINO. Yes.

MR. RODRIGO. Another right is the right to be-
queath. We know that we have close family ties in the
Philippines. Many people work and they try to have a
parcel of land for the security of their children. Let us
say that a farmer obtains under this land reform pro-
gram a 2-hectare land. He has five children. The farmer
dies. Will his five children inherit the land?

MR. TADEO. Maaaring manahin.

MR. RODRIGO. Ng lima niyang anak?

MR. TADEO. Hindi po. Ngunit ang batayan po kasi
nitong land fragmentation ay ang economic family-size
farm; hindi mo ito napapasabog. Hatiin mo, halimbawa,
sa lima mong anak ang matitira dito; sabihm nating .5
hectares o 5,000 square meters lamang. Hindi na iyan
makasasapat sa kanyang pamilya. Ang tunay na inten-
syon ng agrarian reform program, kapanabay nito ang
pagtutulak ng national industrialization, ay ang sobrang

lakas-paggawa na papasok sa industriya para mapanatili
ang economic family-size farm.

MR. RODRIGO. So, this is another limitation on the
ownership, should this proposal be approved as a
constitutional provision. Congress can then place limits
on the right of the heirs to inherit from the fanner who
will be benefited by this provision.

Now, just one last point. May he transform a portion
of the land which is agricultural to a residential lot?

MR. TADEO. Under RA 1199, ang isang ektaryang
sinasaka ay nagkakaloob ng 300 sq. m. na home lot.

MR. RODRIGO. So, does Congress also have the
discretion on this matter?

MS. AQUINO. Yes.

MR. TADEO. Hindi maaaring subdivision, maaaring
magkaroon siya ng home lot o lupang tirahan.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, tliis first sentence in
Section 5 has been sufficiently discussed. May I ask tirat
we take a vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there still need to read it again?

MR. RAMA. There is no more need to do so. We have
read it several times.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of the
proposed Bacani amendment to the first sentence of
Section 5, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

Tliose who are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 30 votes in favor, none against; the
amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President. There are still pro-
ponents ahead of Commissioner de !os Reyes, but
Commissioner de los Reyes is requesting that his amend-
ment which has been accepted by the Committee be
voted upon before we take up the other amendments.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner de los Reyes
please read his proposed amendment.

MR. DE LOS REYES. As an additional sentence to
Section 5: THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE

RIGHTS OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE DETER-
MINATION OF THE RETENTION LIMITS.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of the de
los Reyes amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 36 votes in favor and no vote
against; the amendment is approved.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, just for the
record, I think Commissioner Villegas should be a co-
sponsor of the amendment I presented.*

MR. RAMA. Madam President, on the same second
sentence of Section 5, I ask that Commissioner Trenas
be recognized. • ^

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Trefias is recog-

MR. TRE5JAS. Madam President, may I propose an
^endment to the last part of Section 5 which says:
and subject to a just and progressive system of com-
pensation. I propose to eliminate “and progressive
system of’ so that it will read: “and subject to a just
compensation.”

Madam President, in almost all the provisions of tl
Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, we ha
uniformly used the words “just compensation.” In ca
pnvate property is taken for public use, we use t!
wor s just compensation.” In jurisprudence, it h
een interpreted by the Supreme Court in a lot
cases. However, it seems strange that in this provisit
on a^anan reform, in which a property of a landowr
'^ •11 ^od ^ven to farm workers, just compensate
w e quahfied by the words “progressive systen
cause again a lot of legal complications as
u 11 “'^®^’^®tation of “progressive system” a

1 e ay e payment of just compensation.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

Tffi PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-

inchide th^woM^‘‘ Committee decide^

Z . ” we intended it to I

™ The phrase

bigger tracts of land be made lowe, p™squarrr
to smto tracts of land. That was the id?a behj
It has nothmg to do with the manner of payment E
means does it have any allusion to the payment (
percent down or 90 percent to be paid later on Ii
only in the context of reflecting the market reaU
real estate transactions.

If the honorable Commissioner is willing to accept
that kind of interpretation, that this reflect the fact that
bigger tracts of land usually are priced at a lower price
per square meter, then that may not be necessary in this
sense. We just want to get away from a purely market
price and to refine it in that sense.

MR. TRENAS. Even in that sense, it will still end in
“just compensation,” without the use of the words
“PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM.”

My purpose here is to simplify and use it uniformly
because in the Bill of Rights, we used the words “just
compensation.” However, to that extent, why add
“PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM”? So it will have a more
uniform interpretation, we eliminate “PROGRESSIVE
SYSTEM.”

MS. NIEVA. Yes, maybe the explanation given by
economist Mahar Mangahas might help. He said that all
that this implies is that the compensation formula
should be progressive in the sense that income taxation
is progressive; that is, the proportion of the landowners’
sacrifice should be greater, the larger the size of the
landed estate. For example, if the purchase price is
P20,000 per hectare for the first 10 hectares, then it
could be reduced to PI 5,000 per hectare for the next
10 hectares; and PI 0,000 for the next 10 hectares and
so on.

MR. TRENAS. I agree with that. That is still just
compensation.

MR. MONSOD. Yes. In other words, the word
“PROGRESSIVE” does not quaUfy the word “just,”
but rather the word “compensation.” So, it would still
resolve in a “just compensation.” Maybe this is an
important point that we would like the body to vote on,
whether it should still be included or subsumed in the
word “JUST.”

MR. TRENAS. From the explanation of the Com-
mittee itself, it seems that the phrase “JUST AND
PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM” is not necessary because it is
included in “just compensation,” and this may just
cause complications later on, especially since we have
been using the words “just compensation.” That is my
purpose here.

MR. MONSOD. Yes. Madam President, may we ask
the body’s judgment on it. I think the proponent has
already explained, and so does the Committee.

MR. TRENAS. Yes. The only amendment is to
eliminate “PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM OF” and just
make it “JUST COMPENSATION” to make it simpler.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

I'HH PRHSlDliNT. Coinniissionor Benias is recog-
nized.

FR. BF.RNAS. We discussed earlier the idea of a
progressive sysleni of compensation and I must admit,
that it was before I discus,sed it with Commissioner
Monsod. I lliink what is confusing the matter is the fact
that when we speak of progressive taxation, the bigger
the tax ba.se, the liigher the rate of tax. Here, what we
are saying is Unit tiie bigger the land is, the lower the
value per square meter. So, it is really regressive, not
progressive.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, it is true. It is
progressive with respect to the beneheiary and re-
gressive with respect to the landowner.

FR. BF:RNAS. But is it the intention of the Com-
mittee tliat tlie owner should receive less than the
market value?

MR. MONSOD. It is not the intention of the Commit-
tee that tlie owner should receive less than the just
compensation.

FR. BERNAS. In what way, therefore, is it beneficial
to the buyer if the owner will not get less?

MR. MONSOD. As we said earlier, it was only meant
to reflect the market reality that in bigger tracts of land,
the cost per square meter goes down. Since the priority
of the land reform really starts from bigger tracts of
land, there would be benefits to farmers, if the bigger
tracts of land are first covered by the land reform
program.

FR. BERNAS. I am not sure that the word “pro-
gressive” helps.

MR. MONSOD. We agree, Madam President.

FR. BERNAS. Because if the idea of a “progressive
system” is that the buyer should actually pay less, but
somebody else makes up for the difference, like the
State, then it is clearly progressive in that sense for the
tenant, and it is also Just for the owner.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, yesterday we
answered that question in which we said that just com-
pensation to the landowner does not necessarily mean
that the full payment will come from the beneficiary,
because in some cases, the State has to step in to make
up the difference between what the farmers can afford
and what is just compensation to the landowner.

FR. BERNAS. If the meaning calls for a kind of
subsidy from the State, rather than use the word pio-
gressive,” it is probably better to use a different ex-

pression clarifying the fact that this may involve subsidy
by the State.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, in fact, we
were saying that we want the body to decide because it
may not be completely necessary at this point.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, I just would like
to express the same sentiment. As an economist, 1 find
the word “progressive” really ambivalent in that specific
context. When we say “progressive”' in economics, it
really means the principle of giving more in law to those
who have less in life, but somehow it does not capture
this specific meaning in the phraseology that is used. I
would use another word, or just delete “progressive.”

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, tlie Committee is
also willing to consider an amplification of the ideas of
Commissioner Benias, that in some cases the State may
have to step in to make up the difference between just
compensation to the landowner and affordable cost to
the farmer.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Concep-
cion be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized; afterwards we will recognize Commissioner
Rodrigo.

MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you.

I think the thrust of the amendiiient of Commissioner
Trenas is that the term “just compensation” is used in
several parts of the Constitution, and, therefore, it must
have a uniform meaning. It cannot have in one part a
meaning different from that which appears in the other
portion. If, after all, the party whose property is taken
will receive the real value of the property on just com-
pensation, that is good enough. Any other qualification
would lead to the impression that something else other
than that meaning ot just compensation is used in other
parts of the Constitution.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. I was about to say what Commis-
sioimr Concepcion said. 1 just want to add that the
p lase just compensation” already has a definite mean-
ing in jurisprudence. And, of course, I would like to
leiteiate the fact that “just compensation” here is not

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

the amount paid by the farmers. It is the amount paid
to the owner, and this doe^ not necessarily have to come
from the farmer. The State should subsidize this and
pay a just compensation to the owner and let the tenant
pay the State in accordance with the capacity of the
farmer. If there is a difference, let the State subsidize
the difference. So, I support the amendment of Com-
missioner Trenas.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. May I propose a substitute amend-
ment to read: “just, AND WHERE NECESSARY,
STATE-SUBSIDIZED compensation.”

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Trenas accept
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas?

MR. TRENAS. May I have it again?

FR. BERNAS. It will read: “
AND WHERE NECESSARY
COMPENSATION.”

and subject to a JUST,
STATE-SUBSIDIZED

MR. TRENAS. I accept.

MR. OPLE. Yes. I object to constitutionalizing the
subsidy. It is a power inherent in the State. The commit-
ment to agrarian reform as a central policy of social
justice is very imperative. And I think constitutionaliz-
ing at this point an obligation of the State to subsidize
purchases of lands under the land reform program might
be taken as a mandate to fund all aspects of this pro-
gram with taxpayers’ money, even if a little more
imagination in planning and skillful implementation
could save the people lots of money. Instead of giving
a fiat right here in this Article, that the National
Treasury ought to be opened all the way in order to
subsidize the difference in costs, I think just compensa-
tion to the landowner need not mean government
subsidy. If subsidized compensation would become a
built-in fiat in this Article, it will be made the rule
rather than the exception. In the nature of the real
world in which a government functions, it will tempt
every land reform planner to begin by saying that the
State must subsidize this.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Rega-
lado would like to be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. DA VIDE. Madam President,
nized^ Commissioner Davide is recog-

MR. DAVIDE. May I propose an amendment to the
amendment? The amendment will read: “just com-

GOV?Sm^En¥.” SUBSIDIZED BY THE

ownw sense is, it must be just to the

MR. TRENAS. Precisely.

vain^ owner should get the full market

the payment lVcom?trom"’"'‘' ’

his™opSfaTO„toem?'

Davide, so it wohih kq

BE SUBSIDIZED BY rarCOTER":

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other idea?
Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. REGALADO. Madam President, I propose an
amendment to the proposed amendment of Com-
missioner Trenas. I support him in his statement that
the words “just compensation” should be used there
because it has a jurisprudentially settled meaning, in-
stead of putting in other ambivalent and ambiguous
phrases which may be misconstrued, especially con-
sidering the fact that the words “just compensation”
appear in the different parts of the Constitution. How-
ever, my proposed amendment would read: “subject to
THE PRIOR PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.”
Let me explain. The purpose of this land distribution
scheme is that those whose properties may be under
land reform may be thereby placed in a position after
they have relinquished a portion of their property to
invest in other gainful occupation. That was one of the
purposes mentioned by the Committee. If we just
provide for payment of just compensation without
stating at what particular time that payment should be
made, what happens to the landowner who has now
been dispossessed of his property? Where can he make
investments since he has not been given payment? We
are aware of the Land Bank bond wherein the amount
is realizable only after the lapse of 20 years. It cannot
even be used to pay PNB or DBF loans; it can only be
used to pay taxes.

Furthermore, it is also established in jurisprudence, in
the case of Commissioner of Public Highways V 5 . San
Diego, L-30098, February 18, 1970, that where a pro-
perty has already been thereby condemned — I used the

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

word “condemned” in the sense of expropriation,
because that is tlie other tenn — even if there is already
an award, such an award, even by a judicial order, is not
realizable upon execution; so the poor landowner will
Just have to wait patiently until such time as Congress
appropriates the amount.

In the case of Commissioner of Public Highways vs.
San Diego, it was specifically stated that the judgment
rendered requiring payment of the award determined
as just compensation for the condemned property, and
as a condition precedent for the transfer of the title to
the government, cannot be realized upon execution, as
the legislature must first appropriate the amount over
and above the provisional deposit.

So, my question here is: If we do not require prior
payment, what happens to the landowner now? Must
he wait indefinitely? While in tlie meantime we have
given priority to the landless, we have created another
problem for the erstwhile landed gentry since they
cannot, in any way, use either the property or the sup-
posed proceeds from the property of which they were
dispossessed. If the landless have rights, even the landed
also have rights; or, as Clarence Darrow says, “Even the
rich also have rights.”

We are not talking about the rich here. He is already
parting with his property, and yet we go into an
ephemeral, indefinite statement, “subject to the pay-
ment of just compensation.” And the question is: Where
in point of time will that compensation be made? That
is why I ask that this amendment be accepted subject to
the prior payment of just compensation.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recog-
nized.

MR. BENGZON. There is no need to get excited,
Madam President, because the Committee is not insen-
sitive to the needs of the landowners. When the Com-
mittee placed this paragraph or statement here, it was
the sense that the landowner would be immediately paid
the just compensation. Otherwise, that compensation
would not really be just at all.

And apropos of this, I would like to ask a question
of Commissioner Ople in the remarks that he just
made — that when he objected to the constitutionaliza-
tion of the State subsidy, I hope he did not mean that
the State would not in any case at all come to the rescue
of the farmer where necessary and pay the landowner in
the event that the farmer is unable to pay the just
compensation.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I think I made my
meaning clear that subsidies may be necessary to make
up the difference in price so that the landowner may be
justly compensated. But, at the same time, subsidy must
always be a policy of last resort. And I think the less

that is said about it, the better so that it does not be-
come an open invitation in the future to potential con-
fabulators. We know all about some of these scandals in
land pricing. It is very easy for a government bureau-
crat and a landowner in Mindanao to fix a price so that
both of them will gain at the expense of the taxpayer.

So, I am not against subsidy from the State. What I
am saying is that this should be a last resort and it is
amply covered by all the existmg laws. May I remmd
Commissioner Bengzon Uiat just tlie otlier day P29
billion was allocated as government subsidy to a few
government banks which are government financing
institutions like tlie PNB and DBP in particular. This
P29 billion is bigger than the budget of the Ministry of
National Defense, the entire Armed Forces, the Ministry
of Health and the Ministry of Education, and I suspect
that we have to subsidize from pure taxpayers’ money
these several financial institutions because we have been
faced with a fait accompli. Tliis has been going on for
some time because there is no curb on it.

And so, I agree that we subsidize the purchase of
lands, but to raise it to the level of a constitutional
mandate^ I would have serious scruples about that.

Thank you. Madam President.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President.

MR. TADEO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. Just one statement.

MR. TADEO. Sandah lang po. Madam President.
Tungkol sa pagbabayad ng lupa, gusto ko po lamang na
malaman ninyo ang panig ng magbubukid.

Sa halim ng RA 3844, on the rights of preemption
and redemption, ang pinagbabatayan ditong naapruba-
han noong August 8, 1963 — kaya naman monumental
ang araw na ito — ay reasonable capacity of the farmer to
pay. Sa ilalim ng P.D. No. 27, ang naging halaga ng lupa
per hectare ay P7,000 to P8,000 plus 6 percent interest
for 1 5 years of equal annual amortization, inabot na ng
PI 5,000 at huhulugan pa iyan for 15 years. Nandiyan
ang Minister of Agrarian Reform at ano ang sinasabi
niya? Nine percent lamang ang nakabayad.

Sana ang inyong mga mungkahi ay hindi magpabigat
sa aming mga magbubukid kung hindi magpapagaan.
lyon lamang ang pakiusap ko sa kagalanggalang kong
mga kasama.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, two points only.
First, after listening to the observations of Com-

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

missioner Ople and on the understanding that it does
not exclude the possibility of subsidy, I would gladly
remove that because I also want to avoid a situation
where we make acquisition of land so easy that, in
effect, it may encourage the inefficient use of resources.
So, provided that it is understood that we are not ex-
cluding subsidy whenever it is necessary, then I would
be willing to limit the matter to the phrase “just com-
pensation.”

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, the Committee ac-
cepts.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Committee please allow
Commissioner Bemas to finish his statement?

FR. BERNAS. My second pomt is: I would object to
the addition of the phrase “PRIOR COMPENSATION”
because even if one looks at existing jurisprudence on
expropriation, there is no requirement of immediate,
prior compensation. Just compensation simply requires
that there is an assurance that compensation will be
given. Jurisprudence has not required prior com'pensa-
tion. So, if at this stage when we are trying to do some-
thing for the underprivileged, we make expropriation
more difficult, then again we will be retrogressing.

Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The original amendment of Com-
missioner Trenas stands.

MR. TRENAS. And it has been accepted.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, the Committee has accepted the
frefias amendment.

MR. TRENAS. I am very grateful to the Committee.

Thank you very much.

The results show 39 votes in favor and none against;
the amendment is approved.

As many as are in favor of inserting the word
“PRIOR” . . .

MR. REGALADO. Before we do that. Madam Prc.s-
ident, may I just explain?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. REGALADO. It is not correct to state that juris-
prudence does not require prior payment. Even tlie
recent presidential decrees of the President always
require a partial deposit of a certain percentage and the
rest by a guaranteed payment. What 1 am after here is
that, as Commissioner Bernas has said, there must at
least be an assurance. That assurance may be in the form
of a bond which may be redeemable later. But to say
that there has never been a situation where prior pay-
ment is not required, that is not so even under the
Rules of Court as amended by presidential decrees. Even
the government itself, upon entry on the land, has to
make a deposit and the rest thereafter will be guaran-
teed under the judgment of a court, but which judg-
ment, as 1 have pointed out, is not even realizable by
executory process. Here is the government coming in
now. Does it mean to say that the government can take
its own time in detennining when the payment is to
be made? At least simultaneously, there should be an
assurance in the form of a partial payment in cash or
other modes of payment, and the rest thereof being
guaranteed by bonds, the issuance whereof should be
simultaneous with the transfer. That is my only purpose
in saying that there should be prior payment — not pay-
ment in cash physically but, at least, contract for
payment in the form of an assurance, a guarantee or a
promissory undertaking.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just read
the phrase as now accepted by the Committee?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. MONSOD. The phrase shall read: “and subjec
to the payment of just compensation.”

VOTING

"’“.first, and

anrendment of inserting the word'-TRlOR”* w°e"wiU
vote on that later.

As many as are in favor of the Treflas amendment,
please rarse then hand. (Semral Members raised their
hand.)

THE PRESIDENT. WUl Commissioner Regalado
please restate his proposed amendment?

MR. REGALADO. The proposed amendment will
read: “and subject to THE PRIOR PAYMENT OF just
compensation.”

THE PRESIDENT. It was accepted by the Commit-
tee.

MR. REGALADO. The word “PAYMENT” there
should be understood in the sense that I have explained,
that there must at least be an assurance on the part of
the government.

FR. bernas. Madam President.

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No

Member raised his hand.)

the president. Commissioner Bernas is recog-
nized.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 198

FR. BERNAS. I must say, I did misunderstand Com-
missioner Regalado. I read him as requiring prior full
compensation. But if the intention is merely to maintain
what obtains now, mainly, that it is enough that there
is a partial deposit as it exists under existing law, 1
would agree with him that that is fine. But then I would
still oppose putting it down in writing by itself because
it can be construed as requiring prior full compensation.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. REGALADO. Madam President, Commissioner
Bengzon has just told me that anyway those remarks are
already in the Record. And my remarks, according to
Commissioner Bengzon, have been taken into account
and have been accepted in the sense in which they were
intended. Then, provided it appears in the Record that
that is the purpose of the amendment and such ex-
planation in the Record shall stay, I withdraw the
proposed amendment to the amendment.

MR. DA VIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. If the withdrawal is based on what
was supposedly agreed with the Committee, I will still
object because we will have the concept of just com-
pensation for the farmers and the farm workers more
difficult than those others in cases of eminent domain.
So, we should not make a distinction as to the manner
of the exercise of eminent domain or expropriations and
the manner that just compensation shall be paid. It
should be uniform in all others because if we now allow
the interpretation of Commissioner Regalado to be the
concept of just compensation, then we are making it
hard for the farmers and the farm workers to enjoy the
benefits allowed them under the agrarian reform policy.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, as we stated
earlier, the term just compensation” is as it is defined by
the Supreme Court in so many cases and which we have
accepted. So, there is no difference between “just com-
pensation’ as stated here in Section 5 and “just com-
pensation” as stated elsewhere. There are no two
different interpretations.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we also state
that we have accepted the opinion or interpretation of
Commissioner Bernas, that the State may, in some cases,
have to step in to make up the difference. So, it does
not necessarily follow that these will hurt the farmers.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I would like to
pose what I consider an important question for the

Committee to answer, because we have practically ap-
proved the whole section already. When we speak of the
right of fanners, farm workers, the landless, etc., are
they obliged to exercise that right? Shall they be com-
pelled to exercise that right or does it mean that they
are free to use or not to use the land?

MS. NIEVA. That is right. We feel that tliis is tlieir
right, but this is a right that they may waive if they
prefer to do so. They are not obliged to avail of that
right. It is there.

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

MR. OPLE. Is that the official interpretation of the
Committee?

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

MR. OPLE. May I point out that under the Labor
Code, the rights may not be waived by the workers.

MR. BENGZON. The Labor Code has to give way to
the constitutional provision in this case.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, because the farmers may not want
to exercise their right.

MR. OPLE. Because this interpretation can actually
legitimize in advance various pressures so that the
farmers will not exercise the right that the same Consti-
tution now purports to give them. I think it is a
dangerous interpretation. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

MR. COLAYCO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colayco is recog-
nized.

MR. COLAYCO. The exercise of this right by the
farmers involves assumption of obligations.

MS. AQUINO. Yes.

MR. COLAYCO. Obligations which he may either not
be in a position to pay or may not wish to assume at all.
So, I agree with the conceptual thinking expressed by
the Committee.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may 1 pomt out that
the reason we are building certain innovations institu-
tionalizing people s participation at various levels of the
agrarian reform is precisely to uisuiv that these rights
will become effective and that they will, in fact, be
exercised, especially considering the realities in many

THURSDAY. AUGUST 7, 1986

parts of our countryside where all the social structures
are stacked up historically against the exercise of these
rights. We may have it in the law but the day-to-day
social pressures will make it impossible for many of the
beneficiaries to exercise these rights or even to invoke
them unless there are countervailing means of enabling
them to exercise these rights. And if the position of the
Committee now becomes official, these rights can be
waived because the obligations may be declined. I think
we are treading on a dangerous borderline that may be
self-defeating in the end. But I leave these all to the
Committee.

The other point I want to make is whether or not the
Cornmittee accepts the fact that the reason why in most
countries land reform programs have been successful is
because of newly liberated resources from land reform;
that is, the new capital made available to expropriated
landowners have been turned into fuel for industrializa-
tion. This was what happened in Taiwan. Within five
years of the land reform program, $2 billion (Taiwan)
was released for the industrialization of Taiwan and,
therefore, there was some synergy at work in a land
reform policy. It helped the farmer; the social purposes
were met but, at the same time, the need for economic
development and accelerated industrialization were also
met with the same weapon.

And so, I would like to alert the Committee with my
mtention to propose a brief amendment under the same
section which would try to optimize these resources
oc ed up in the land but which will be released as a
resu t of the land reform policy for industrialization.

Thank you.

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, for the Committee.

II ^^MA. Madam President, I think we shov
a ow the Committee members to eat first so they c

Membe^ ^swer correctly the questions from t

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino desires to
rep y. an we listen first to Commissioner Aquino?

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Madam President. The Commit-

ee wou ike to clarify and eliminate the cobwebs that
are presented so far.

sociaHnctw^p'^^ ^^^cept and the mandate ol

to a comnnk'^'^ ^ reform program do not amount
tions which thp workers to assume obliga-

words the rn ^ Prepared to assume. In othei

from ihe landZ“e° Thfell™ cooperation

the mtended beneficiary of the program. The right tc

waive is not recognized when it ammmto •

r- r xi. o . 11 amounts to a waiver m

favor of another. Surely, we will recognize the freedom

of choice pertainmg to the worker, on whether or nol

he is willing to assume the obligation.

I hope that clarifies the conceptual variance.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

MR. OPLE. The interpretation is acceptable to me in
the light of the freedom of choice that we have, but the
caveat I have made in the real world, I think, is very real
as well, and I will be grateful if the Committee can take
that into account.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. RAMA. It is already twelve thirty- seven. Madam
President; I move that we suspend the session until two-
thirty.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended until
two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 12:37 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, on the issue raised by
Commissioner Ople, Commissioner Nolledo would like
to have two minutes to comment on that issue of the
waiver of rights by the farmers.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoHedo is recog-
nized.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to make a few remarks on the statement
of the Committee that the rights under the land reform
program are subject to a waiver. Madam President, I
join Commissioner Ople in his opinion that the members
of the Committee in making that statement are treading
on dangerous grounds. The land reform program is
societal in nature, that it is demanded by the imperative
need to diffuse property ownership as a matter of
national and public policy. If we adopt the general rule
that the rights under the land reform program of the
government are subject to waiver, then we will open the
avenue towards circumvention thereof by the landlords
in many subtle ways. So, I will agree to the statement of
the Committee that we cannot compel a tenant to
assume obligations or to avail of the benefits afforded
by the land reform program, if that statement is given a
restrictive meaning, because if the tenant does not avail
of the benefits and rights under the land reform pro-
gram, then he will forfeit his right and his share should
accrue to other beneficiaries of land reform.

So, I think, the general rule is that the benefits and
rights under the land reform program of the govern-
ment should not be subject to waiver, because the land

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

reform program is grounded on public policy. Otherwise
we will have what is known as unique influence. The
landowners may put their minds over the minds of the
tenants whose intelligence may not be at par with the
landowners, so they have many ways of threatening the
tenants to make the waiver for a consideration. And
these tenants are poor. They do not enjoy financial
capacity. They may be paid, for example, P5,000 to
sign deeds of waiver. And if we adopt the statement of
the Committee in this sense, I am sorry to say that the
land reform program of the government will be com-
pletely negated.

Thank you very much. Madam President.

MR. LERUM. Madam President, may I be recog-
nized?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. LERUM. As a member of the Committee, my
understanding is that the provision does not con-
template a waiver but that the tenant may not want to
exercise his right. That is its meaning. In other words,
while we provide here that the tenant has a right to
own, but if he does not want to buy, why should we
force him to buy if, for example, he does not have the
means to do so? As a member of the Committee, that is
my understanding. There is no waiver, but the tenant
may not want to exercise his right. There is a big dif-
ference between a waiver and not wanting to exercise a
right. For example, under the Constitution, there is a
provision there that says that the workers have a right to
form unions. But there are many workers who do not
want to form unions. We are not forcing them. They
have that right but they do not only want to exercise
that right. So, my understanding, as a member of the
Committee, is that it is not a waiver but not wanting to
exercise a right granted to them.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Sarmiento be recognized to amend the second
sentence of Section 5.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-
nized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, my amend-
ment is an amendment by deletion. I move that we
delete the words “priorities” and “and other conditions
as Congress may prescribe.” May I briefly explain my
amendment? It is my humble submission that the in-
clusion of these words will seriously impair the agrarian
reform program in our country. This will further limit
the scope of agrarian reform.

Madam President, we must remember that in 1972,
President Marcos declared the whole country covered
by land reform through P.D. No. 2. A month later, P.D.
No. 27 was issued limiting the scope of land reform only

to rice and com lands. He later issued several decrees
further impairing the agrarian reform program. For
instance, he issued P.D. No. 1 942 which limits the scope
of land reform. Under that decree, lands which were
newly converted to rice and com are exempted from
land transfer. In 1974, he issued General Order No. 47
on Corporate Farming Program. Under this order, land-
owners have found a convenient excuse to avoid land
reform by leasing their landholdings to a corporate
farm. As of 1979, about 15,000 hectares of land
originally occupied by tenants, small settlers and small
owner-cultivators have been lost to corporate farms.
Many alienated peasants were absorbed as workers in
the corporate farms. Others had simply nowhere to go.
Some of these agribusiness corporations operating in
Mindanao availing of the benefits under General Order
No. 47 are the following: Tagum Agricultural Develop-
ment Incorporated (TADECO), Davao Foods Corpora-
tion, IHO Plantation Incorporated, NTC GUTHRIE
Estates Incorporated, Sime Darby International Tire
Company, Davao Agricultural Ventures under TADE-
CO, San Miguel Corporation and Ayala Agricultural
Development Corporation. And, lastly, he issued LOI
No. 143 which exempts landowners who are members
of tlie Armed Forces of the Philippines and other
branches of the government from inclusion in Operation
Land Transfer.

It is my humble submission that if we include the
words “priorities” and “and other conditions as
Congress may prescribe,” we open tlie floodgates to
more restrictions and limitations thereby seriously im-
pairing the crucial provision in our Constitution on
agrarian reform. Therefore, I humbly request that these
words be deleted.

Finally, because of these decrees and the conditions
issued by Mr. Marcos, the effect according to one article
was this, and I would like to quote it:

The Marcos regime promoted the full commercialization
of agriculture with unparalled vigor justifying such thrust in
the name of seemingly pro-people programs such as land
reform and agricultural modernization. Backed up by
tremendous funding from the World Bank group, the pro-
gram of modernization sometunes dubbed as rural mobiliza-
tion turned out to be a mere vehicle for the unprecedented
expansion of agri-business interest.

Mindanao and Palawan were divided, salami style, into
different plantations owned by agri-business transnationals
and local corporate interests led by Marcos cronies such as
Antonio Floirendo and Eduardo Cojuangco.

In Luzon and in Visayas, the small farmers were gradual-
ly trapped inside the huge agri-business net through the new
seeds dependent on expensive agri-business inputs, the cor-
porate-contract growing system and the so-called interplay
of market forces.

So, Madam President, on the basis of these manifesta-
tions, I suggest that we delete the words “priorities” and
other conditions as Congress may prescribe.”

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

responsive than we are. And so, I do not think that we
should limit unnecessarily the discretion of our
Congress in implementing this land reform.

Thank you very much.

MR. RODRIGO. May I say a few words against the
proposed amendment?

Honestly, I do not feel that we in this Constitutional
Commission are better qualified or better equipped to
decide on this matter and to go intolhe details of this
land reform than the representatives and senators who
will be elected by our people and who will compose
the membership of our Congress. I think we are begin-
ning to lose confidence in our officials who will be
elected. We seem to suffer from paranoia because of
what Marcos did. But, Madam President, Marcos was a
dictator; he declared martial law.

THE PRESIDENT. What is happening, Commissioner
Rodrigo?

MR. RODRIGO. There was a conversation going on
beside that microphone and I could not concentrate.
Madam President. It is all right.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recog-
nized.

MR. BENGZON. May the Committee now ask for
a vote?

THE PRESIDENT. What is the reaction of the Com-
mittee first?

MR. BENGZON. I believe the Committee will not
accept the amendment.

MR. TADEO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tadeo is recog-
nized.

^ thought Commissioner Rodri
go s freedom to speak is being censored.

bei^^b Madam President. I was jus

the president. Please proceed.

MR. RODRIGO. I need a little peace and quiet
that I can concentrate.

Madam President, we should not base our judgmc
imripr Congress on what President Marcos (

ana hp ^ one-man legislatu

frnino cronies because he thought he v

^ dictator for life. But remember that 1
members of our Congress wUl be elected by the peo

sensitWp t^^th ’'®®^®^tion, and so they have to

not think °wp ^ and feelings of the people. I

into the deta i^'^^f *^'^^hfied than they are to
into the details of this land reform nrogram I et us f

It. We are appointive officials T^r cn

will be elected from all o“r th^ PWrlT ' p

in coconut lands I have nTknVri ''“'l
lands. I am not acquainted'' ” Tgf
tobacco-growtng regions; I have no knowledge of tl
But the coming Congress will have representatives fn
the coconut region, the sugar region, the tobacco-growi
region and other regions, and they will know how
act and they will be responsible to the people, m*

MR. BENGZON. The Committee is divided that is
why we will submit it to a vote. Madam President.

MR. TADEO. Ang mga sinabi ni kasamang Rene
Sarmiento ay wasto naman. Naging loopholes ang mga
ito sa pagpapatupad mismo ng P.D. No. 27. Tungkol
sa “subject to such priorities,” sa pananaw ng mag-
bubukid, kung ito ay mananatili, ang ibig sabihin ay
magsisimula ito doon sa sinasabi natin kanginang equity
— iyong sobra at labis na lupain ay mapupunta roon sa
maliliit na magbubukid, sa mga landless na sinasabi natin
kangina. Totoong maselang umpisahan ang land reform
program sa small landowner. Magkakaroon talaga
tayo ng problema. Kaya ang ibig naming sabihin ay
kung mananatili ang phrase na ito ay magsisimula tayo
sa big tenanted landholdings, ill-gotten agricultural
lands, tenanted agricultural lands, idle and/or aban-
doned agricultural lands.

Ang tanong kasi ni Commissioner Ople noong isang
araw ay, “Jimmy, kung isang malaking plantasyon
na ten hectares, paano ba ito?” Narito ngayon ang
sagot. Uumpisahan natin sa malalawak at malalaking
lupain, kasi nandoon talaga iyong tinatawag nating
equity — magsisimula sa labis at sobra, ibibigay doon
sa landless at hindi sa small landowner na sinasabi ni
Commissioner Nolledo. Ito iyong sa huling bahagi na
sinabi ko noon pa, regardless of crops. Pero dapat
i-delete iyong other conditions, dahil magkakaroon
dito ng napakalaking loopholes.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

C '£02

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. I move that we vote on the
amendment individually. I think Commissioner Tadeo
has a very good point. I may want to keep that phrase
“subject to sucli priorities” because he has advocated
that in the Committee for a long time. I think that that
will make for a very reasonable land reform and the
other one may be an onerous provision — “and other
conditions as Congress may prescribe.” And so, I
would not want to have a wholesale vote on the two of
them.

BISHOP BACANI. I have a motion that they be
taken and voted on separately because that will not
prejudice anybody.

THE PRESIDENT. We have the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Sarmiento and that would depend
on him. He was the one who made this amendment.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, following the
Chair’s instruction and manifestation, may I move that
we first vote on the deletion of the word “priorities”?

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. TADEO. Madam President, pabor ako; kaisa
ako sa mungkahi ni Commissioner Sarmiento.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I suggest that we
preserve the words “retention limits.”

MR. SARMIENTO. That phrase is preserved. Madam
President.

MR. OPLE. Yes, but I also would move for the dele-
tion of “other conditions.” May I visualize for the
body the situation that will transpire in the future
Congress?

Most of those who will be elected by legislative dis-
tricts will represent landed interests, and they will focus
on these other conditions to legitimize all manner of
circumventing the heart and the spirit of Section 5. I
support Commissioner Tadeo in his position that the
words “other conditions” would mean providing in
advance a weapon for future adversaries of Section 5
the Congress in order to circumvent the entire
Section 5.

SR. TAN. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. Yes. I think we should take this up
because when we discussed these priorities in the
meeting, we have agreed that we would first concentrate
on the big landholdings and that there would be a
timetable; and only then would we gradually go down
to the smaller landholdings. That is what we meant by
“priorities.” So, we are willing to put this to a vote.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, if my memory
serves me right. Commissioner Tadeo was the main
proponent of this.

MR. TADEO. PagUlinaw, Madam President. Ang una
kong option dito ay ang deletion of “priorities” and
“other conditions.” Ang point ko lang ay kung mana-
natili pa rin ito, ang ibig sabihin ng priorities ay iyong
ipinaliwanag ko kanina. Pero ang una kong option dito
ay to delete “priorities” para maiwasan na ang prob-
lema.

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog-
nized.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized.

I am not referring to

^ t ^ referring to ourselves.

Since we started this agrarian reform, I get the im-
pression that we are cutting more and more the rights
of the farmers. First, we removed “basic,” so it was
only right , then, we added “retention rights”; then,
we just and progressive system”; we just

have just with the understanding that there is prior
payment, now we have “and other conditions as
Congress may prescribe.” So, I feel at this moment
that this land reform is for the benefit of the middlemen
or the middle class or the elite class. So, I am pleading
that at least that phrase “other conditions” be deleted.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

MR. PADILLA. I object to eliminating the very
important phrase “as Congress may prescribe.”

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, we will be
voting on the first issue, the elimination of the word
“priorities.” Thereafter, we will vote on the deletion
of the words “other conditions.”

the PRESIDENT. Yes, but Commissioner Sar-
miento’s amendment includes the deletion of “as
Congress may prescribe.”

MR. SARMIENTO. No, Madam President. My amend-
ment is the deletion of “such priorities” and “and other
conditions. So, it will read: “subject to reasonable
retention limits as Congress may prescribe, taking
into account ecological, developmental or equity
considerations and subject to a just compensation.”

May I just inform the body, Madam President, that
Article XIII, Section 12 of the 1973 Constitution does

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

not even contain qualifications and limitations. It
simply states:

The State shall formulate and implement an agrarian
reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the
bondage of the soil and achieving the goals enunciated in
this Constitution.

What we have is a list of restrictions and limitations
under this new Constitution, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

with coconut and sugar. There are so many questions
that will have to be resolved by technical studies so that
we can establish priorities. So, this is not only a ques-
tion of big versus small landholders but we are con-
cerned with the various crops planted on these lands.
Since we are interested with all crops, we cannot im-
plement the land reform simultaneously; we will have
to set priorities. That is why, 1 think, the expression
“subject to such priorities” would be very much needed
in order that Congress will know that we are cognizant
of the fact that there are priorities even as far as crops
are concerned.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. I understand that the Committee’s
interpretation of “other priorities” would refer to the
prioritization of the application. So, it should start
first with the big landed estates and then those who
would be affected later will be the small landowners.
To me, that is a very sensible limitation, because if
we do not establish the basis for a priority. Congress
may also adopt the reversed system; start first with the
small landowners because they are not represented in
Congress. So, we will have Congress attending only to
the vested interests of the big landowners. The small
landowners will be victimized now by an act of Congress
which IS controlled by a group with a vested interest.

Insofar as the Article referred to by Commissioner
armiento is concerned, that was even dangerous,
oecause It was a mere declaration of a principle that the
■ ^ an agrarian reform program, and that

IS he reason why President Marcos abused that
particular declaration of principle. Now, we are man-
atmg Congress to especially provide for an agrarian
retoim program in order that the landless will now
e the owner of the property they are tilling, and
necessarily we have to take into account also the
developmental and ecological objectives of the State
ecause of necessity to balance interests. We are
rath Congress the parameters in the imposition
rather than in the exercise of a duty to pursue the
objectives of land reform.

So, I would
words.

object to the proposal to delete these

THE PRESIDENT. Let us hear first Commissioner
Bemas.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I quite realize that
there may be a need to establish priorities, but if for the
understanding of the meaning of priorities we always
have to go to the debates of the Constitutional Con-
vention, then that is a difficult situation. In constitu-
tional construction, the first rule is that one looks at
the meaning of the word, and it is only secondarily
that one goes to the record. As it is now, with this
enumeration of so many things, it would seem that
we are constricting the power of Congress to push land
reform rather than strengthening it. Anyway, we have
the clause “as Congress may prescribe.” Moreover,
it says; “taking into account ecological, developmental
or equity considerations and subject to a just com-
pensation.” All of these are merely a repetition of the
fact that Congress after all has plenary powers as far
as legislation is concerned. Congress can exercise and
restrict. So, I disagree with those who may say that, in
effect, we are preempting the right of Congress to
establish priorities. Rather, what I say is that we must
avoid the impression that we are really almost un-
willingly recognizing the power of Congress to under-
take a land reform program — that impression jumps
out from the text when one looks at the enumeration
of all those limitations on the power of Congress.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, will the Gentle-
man please yield to some questions?

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President,
niz™ Commissioner Villegas is recog-

FR. BERNAS. Very willingly, Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Could I also add some areumer
support of Commissioner Davide’s wanttofto r
the word pnonties ? ®

As already emphasized by Commissioner Rodrigo,
this body is not technically competent to determine’
for example, whether or not we should first complete
the rice and, com land reform program and then start

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to give emphasis to
the words “may prescribe.” Would the Gentleman
agree with me that if I say “subject to such priorities,
reasonable retention limits and other conditions as
Congress may prescribe,” we are giving Congress a
discretion to set forth priorities? The words “may
prescribe” would mean that Congress may not pres-
cribe priorities after all?

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

FR. BERNAS. It is possible that in the judgment
of Congress, what it considers priority may be to set
priorities.

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman is aware that the
Ministry of Agrarian Refonn, as announced in today’s
papers or yesterday’s papers, is also observing some
sort of priorities in the sense that they would like to
complete the rice and com land reform program before
going to coconut or sugar land because we do not have
the necessary funding to finance the entire land reform
program.

FR. BERNAS. The point is, I am not denying the
right of Congress to set priorities. All I am saying is
that by enumerating all these, we give the impression
that we are trying to constrict the power of Congress.

MR. NOLLEDO. Based on the explanation of Com-
missioner Tadeo, we are not constricting the power of
Congress because Congress may begm first with the
big landholdings and later on with medium-sized land-
holdings, and perhaps later on with small landholdings
unless they are exempt by Congress.

FR. BERNAS. But as I understand Commissioner
Tadeo, he sees the difficulty now and, as a matter of
fact, he is willing to eliminate “priorities.”

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that was his first choice. But
later he said that his second choice, based on his inter-
pretation is that the word “priorities” may exist here
after all. I think Commissioner Bernas would like to
eliminate the word “prioiities” because of the words;
“taking into account ecological, developmental or
equity considerations” which will take the place of
“priorities.”

FR. BERNAS. Correct, Madam President. That is
a sufficient guideline for Congress.

MR. NOLLEDO Would that guideline be less em-
phatic than the word “priorities”?

FR. bernas. When Congress takes into con-
sidera ion eco ogical, developmental or equity con-
siderations, in fact, it will be setting the priorities.

MR- NOLLEDO. The word “priorities” is more em-
phatic. Why do we not place it there?

FR. BERNAS. It is excess verbiage; it gives the
impression that we are more interested in limiting
Congress than in pushing Congress towards land reform.

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. Madam President,
because of the words “may prescribe.” In fact, we are
giving flexibility to Congress, considering, as stated by
Commissioner Rodrigo, that we do not enjoy the man-

date of the people. We are merely appointed. Why do
we not let Congress, whose elective members enjoy
the mandate of the people, determine the set of
priorities?

FR. BERNAS. I am not denying that at aU. I think.
Madam President, we have sufficiently discussed this.
It is a question of perceptions; we submit it to a vote.

MR. NOLLEDO. Tliank you, Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the issue has been
amply debated. I move that we vote on this particular
amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Tlie body will vote on the dele-
tion of the words “such priorities.” Is that correct.
Commissioner Sarmiento?

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. That is what we will do.

As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Sarmiento to delete the words “such
priorities” from the second sentence of Section 5,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)

The results show 14 votes in favor and 20 against;
the amendment is lost.

What is the other amendment?

MR. SARMIENTO. My second amendment, Madam
President, is the deletion of the words “and other
conditions.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the
deletion of the clause “and other conditions,” also on
the second sentence of Section 5, please raise then-
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand
(Few Members raised their hand.)

The results show 20 votes in favor and 15 against;
the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is still one
proponent of an amendment to Section 5 .

May I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid
is recognized.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, I have an
amendment by addition on the second sentence of
Section 5. Between “encourage” and “and,” insert
the phrase VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. May
I please give the background of my amendment?

I think we are all convinced that the government
should take the prime responsibility in agrarian reform
and that we should put more teeth in the imple-
mentation of the program so that we can redress present
imbalances and inequities. But 10 years from now, we
would like the government to assume a lesser role. We
would like to see more initiative from the people. We
would like to encourage efforts hke what is happenmg
in Negros in terms of voluntary land sharing. We would
like to be able to help reorient the middle class, the
landlords, the employers so that we can change adver-
sary or confrontational strategies to cooperative and
harmonious relationships. There are actually projects
like human resource development programs, which
bring together the landlords and the planters with the
sacadas. In this dialogue, the spirit of cooperation and
harmony is forged and, consequently, is voluntarily
shared. We would like to see the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform move towards creating a climate where private
initiative could thrive. And so, I would request the
Committee to consider including an amendment on
voluntary land sharing. After all, in the labor sector,
Aey agreed on voluntary modes of settling disputes!
This would encourage government and other non-
government organizations to move towards this
direction.

Thank you. Madam President.

the president. May we have the proposed

amendment?

“ ROSARIO BRAID. Between “encourage” and
and, insert VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that a new sentence?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. No, it is in the second
sentence which will then read; “To this end, the State
shall encourage VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING
and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands . . .”

MS. NIEVA. Does not Commissioner Rosario Braid
think that that is included in the phrase “the State
shall encourage”? By encouraging, would that not
necessarily include voluntary and all modes of land
distribution?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It might be. Madam
President, but it does not provide a mandatory’ direction
that would move towards this direction. Actually, I
see voluntary land sharing as the wave of the future
in land reform.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, will the Com-
missioner please agree to an amendment?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Certainly.

MR. NOLLEDO. If we adopt Commissioner Ro-
sario Braid’s amendment now, it might result in a
nebulous provision. Would she agree with me if we
make it as the last sentence of Section 5: THE STATE
SHALL FOSTER VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It is all right.

MR. NOLLEDO. Instead of putting it there, we
should place it at the end of Section 5 because in the
amendment, we cannot begin: “To this end, the State
shall encourage. . .” I think the sentence, as alrea^
amended, will be adversely affected if we put “VOLU
TARY LAND SHARING,” because it might create
the impression that what the State fosters is
voluntary land sharing, which is not the case,

ever, we can supplement the provision by stating- „
STATE SHALL FOSTER VOLUNTARY LA
SHARING as the last sentence of Section 5.
my amendment to the amendment.

th ^

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Accepted, as long as
concept is there.

MR. NOLLEDO. I ask that the
Committee please consider seriously the ^ . fjj-st
of Commissioner Rosario Braid, corn-

provision excluding her amendment will ^^^*^^^jggjoner
pulsory land distribution while that of Co gj^aring-
Rosario Braid encourages only voluntary 1^*^ ^dholder
That is without State intervention. Any ^ perhaps
may adopt a voluntary land sharing pfogt^ ’
with the support of the State.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Would the proponent yield to some
questions?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Certainly.

MR. DAVIDE. By voluntary land sharing, would it
also encompass the right of the landowners to share
their landholdings?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Certainly.

MR. DAVIDE. If that is so, would it not defeat the
objective of land reform, because if they now volunta-
rily share their landholdings, it could be beyond the
reach of land reform?

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. No, not necessarily; it can be
a complementary program.

MR. DAVIDE. It could be, but tliat is also a right
conceded to the landowners. So, how can we remove
from them what they have already obtained by reason
of an exercise of a right? So, if we now allow land
sharing among landowners, it will remove the right to
implement the land reform over these land areas which
are subject of the land sharing.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I think the future legislature
could come up with provisions that would specify the
size of land that could fall under voluntary land sharing
and other specifics. The concept is to ensure that this is
also taken up as complementai-y program.

MR. DAVIDE. 1 would have no objection if the land
sharing will be by the farmers and the farm workers,
because that would amount to collective ownership.
But, if it would apply even to the landowners whose
lands may be the subject of land reform, then that
might be dangerous. We give it as an option to the farm
workers and the farmers, but not to the landowners.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I think it could be stated as
an option, and we should encourage it as long as it
would not prejudice the existing land reform program.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, as an option to the beneficiaries,
but not to the original landowners. I would agree with
the proponent because it would really encourage the
establishment of cooperatives or partnerships among
the beneficiaries.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. But not in favor of the original land-
owners.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Could we work on an amend-
ment that would capture the spirit of what Commission-
er Davide said?

MR. DAVIDE. If it would be an option to be granted
to the beneficiaries, I think the word COLLECTIVELY
would already embody the concept. They are entitled
to own singly or directly, on the one hand, or collec-
tively on the other. That would already include land
sharing. That is my own perception. I do not know the
position of the Committee on the matter.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, could I just ask a
few questions from the proponent?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. The proponent said that the basis
for this proposal was the experiment that her organiza-

tion tried out in Negros. Could she just enhghten the
Committee on the background of such a proposal which
has served as tlie basis for this amendment on land
sharing?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It has emerged out of a dire
need in the province of Negros. As a matter of fact, it is
perhaps the most imaginative and most successful pro-
gram now. They have Ed Locsin of Chito Foundation
and his colleagues and these programs are supported by
the Farmers’ Human Resource Development Programs
of Mrs. Magsaysay and others. This experiment is
spreading in tlie region and has proven worthy of
replication. It has been evaluated in many reports.
Among the benefits is ^ the establishment of a more
cooperative, harmonious environment. Having the land-
lord and the worker together reduces confrontational
and adversarial relations. It is a complementary strategy
to the traditional land reform program.

MS. QUESADA. Does tire proponent emdsion the
government to come in to this kind of an arrangement?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes, by creating the cUmate.
Tliey have a number of programs, primarily, training
and research programs. Some of the resources could
support the replication of tliese projects throughout
the country. So, instead of using the resources in just
supporting the traditional land reform programs, they
can develop the pilot communities throughout the
country.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the amendment has
been clearly explained by the proponent and I think
it is time to vote on that amendment.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. We will give the Committee a few
minutes to deliberate on this.

The session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 3:33 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:35 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Committee has
decided to put to a vote the amendment of Commis-
sioner Rosario Braid.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we please
explain our position.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, let us hear first the Commit-
tee.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, when the Commit-
tee drafted this section, we put the word “encourage”
precisely not to preclude voluntary modes of just dis-
tribution. However, the section is very clear, that the
coverage is all agricultural lands.

I think the proposal of Commissioners Rosario Braid
and Nolledo is not precluded by the word “encourage”
because it is possible, in order to encourage, that the
government will give incentives to accelerate the
program in its system of priorities. So, I do not think
that that is precluded, and it is unnecessary.

•So, the Committee feels that it cannot accept the
amendment because it might confuse or it might open
the section to a different interpretation, and we want to
establish the coverage to all agricultural lands.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, may I answer
very briefly?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Commissioner Nolledo.

MR. NOLLEDO. The proposed amendment of Com-
missioner Rosario Braid is designed to really accelerate
land reform program with respect to those who would
like to comply voluntarily with it, expecting that they
will be given incentives by the government.

We have amended the amendment already, Madar
resi ent. Landowners who are willing to adopt volur
Th” ^ afraid of paying capital gain

rnmni ^ Tu ^ Christian brotherhood, t'

P y with the land reform program of the goverr
men , even disregarding priorities that may be set fort
y ongress. But they like the government to give ther
incen ives, like exemption from capital gains tax.

And so. Commissioner Rosario Braid may read the
proposed amendment as amended.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.

The results show 16 votes in favor and 14 against; tlic
amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, for a one-word
amendment, I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recog-
nized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog-
nized.

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, my amendment is
with respect to the second sentence; insert tlic woid
ARABLE between “all” and “agricultural.”

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Jamir please
explain?

MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President. I propose to
insert the word ARABLE to distinguish this km o
agricultural land from such lands as commercia an
industrial lands and residential properties hecause a
of them fall under the general classification o
cultural.” And since the intention of the Comnii
apparently, is to limit the application of the
“agricultural” here to land subject to cultivation a
adding the word ARABLE.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President.

The words “agricultural lands” have already
defined repeatedly, that they are no't suppose
include commercial and industrial lands. But
contemplation of the Committee in its definition wo
be limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. If the Committee will allc
^^^"dment, it wUl be; THE COVER
INCENTIVES TO THOJ
WHO ADOPT VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. S

this will be the last sentence.

MR. JAMIR. So it is clear that “agricultural lands o
not include commercial, industrial and resideiitia
lands.

MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner is correct.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. This has been sufficiently d

the suspensic

of the session. So, they are ready to vote

As many as are m favor of the proposed amendment
of Commtssioner Rosario Braid to add a sentence to
Section 5 which she has just stated, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

MR. JAMIR. With that explanation, I voluntarily
withdraw my amendment. Madam President.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. In consequence of the amendment of
Commissioner Sarmiento, there is a necessary one-word

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

addition to this Section 5. May we call on Commissioner
Sarmiento, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. What happened to the Jamir
amendment?

MR. RAMA. It was withdrawn because of the ex-
planation of the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. All right.

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, the Vice-President is recog-
nized.

MR. PADILLA. With regard to the proposed amend-
ment of Commissioner Jamir and the explanation of
Commissioner Suarez, I would like to state that public
lands are broadly classified into timberlands and agri-
cultural and mineral lands.

But under the term agricultural lands, there are
subdivisions, as mentioned by Commissioner Jamfr,
which may include residential, commercial and indus-
trial lands. So to make it clear, especially because there
is the word “all” to “agricultural lands,” I think that the
proposed amendment of putting “ARABLE” - and
Commissioner Suarez even added, “AND SUITABLE”—
would be acceptable. Tliat while it says, “all agricultural
lands,” it is limited to agricultural lands that are open to
farming or agricultural cultivation, etc.

So with the permission of Commissioner Jamir, I
would propose that we adopt, subject to what the Com-
mittee feels, the insertion of the word “ARABLE” be-
cause the word “all” was not deleted. So, in my
opinion, we can either eliminate “all” and just say
“agricultural lands,” or if the word “all” is retained,
insert the word “ARABLE.”

What does the Committee say?

MR. REGALADO. Madam President.

the president. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. REGALADO. Just in support of what Com-
missioner Padilla has stated and for symmetry and
uniformity of both expression and intendment, we may
take into account the provisions of Section 7 with
respect to lands of the public domain which also specif-
ically state “suitable to agriculture.” So I think the same
intent also applies to private lands.

Therefore, aside from the possibility of using the
word “arable,” we can say DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
LANDS SUITABLE TO AGRICULTURE just to make
it jibe with the same phraseology in Section 7.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to Com-
missioner Padilla?

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Let us "get the reaction first of
Commissioner Padilla on the proposed amendment.

MR. PADILLA. I have no objection to the proposal
of Commissioner Regalado because it expresses the same
substance.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will Commissioner
Padilla yield?

THE PRESIDENT. Let us hear Commissioner Ben-
nagen first, as member of the Committee.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

There is a distinction in the use of “agriculture” in
Section 7 and its use in Section 5. The reference to the
use of “suitable to agriculture” in Section 7 has some-
thing to do with other natural resources including lands
of the public domain, whereas in Section 5, the refer-
ence is clear, that it is to “agricultural lands.” In any
case, we have three criteria which have to be taken into
account in all those proceedings; ecological, develop-
mental and equity considerations. I think those should
be taken into account.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President.

May I just quote for the benefit of the Com-
missioners, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform survey
report of May 1986, defining the meaning of agricul-
tural lands for land reform purposes:

Agricultural lands mean lands devoted to any growth,
including but not limited to, crop lands, salt beds, fish-
ponds, idle lands and abandoned lands. They include all
arable public and private lands, regardless of crop, size of
landholding and tenurial arrangement.

I hope that will satisfy the observations of Commissioner
Padilla.

MR. PADILLA. Precisely the Commissioner’s defini-
tion or that definition uses the word “arable.” So we are
just adopting that word.

MR. SUAREZ. No. That is why it is already included
in the words “agricultural lands,” Madam President.

MR. PADILLA. No.

MR. SUAREZ. I am referring to the word “arable.”

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. PADILLA. No, it is not included because the
term “agricultural lands” is very broad. Agricultural
lands are only distinguished from timberlands and
mineral lands. All other lands are agricultural but
definitely not all agricultural lands are arable.

MR. SUAREZ. The problem is, if we define it with
the word “arable,” it might exclude the possibility of
setting up, for example, a salt bed, a fishpond, which
may not, strictly speaking, be fit for cultivation or may
not be arable. That is the fear of the Commiteee, so we
would rather that this be broadened by just saymg
“all agricultural lands,” which would necessarily include
even salt beds and fishponds.

MR. PADILLA. In that case, if the Commissioner
feels that arable” does not cover everything that
should be covered by agricultural lands, except those
mentioned as residential, commercial and industrial,
then we just say “agricultural lands” without using the
word “all.”

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, my concern is about
the more or less 600,000 kaingineros all over the coun-
We all know there is a program of the Ministry of
atural Resources granting stewardship contracts to
ese ainpneros that later on can mature into owner-
s ip, so t at they stop burning our forests, destroying
ur watersheds and causing calamities on the lowlands,
^ through floods. Will this definition of “arable
thp ^ from the purview of agrarian reform

ir. '^nd-bum farmers of whom we have, accord-

ing to the NEDA, no fewer than 600,000 right now?

MR. PADILLA. Madam President, some of these
aingineros bum trees within timberlands or forest
an s, an these are illegal acts. It is worse if they cut
rees ecause that has given rise to many adverse
~ erosion of soil, floods and others. So if
timberlands and not classified as agricultural
nr private grants hke homestead, lease,

T KpUp methods recognized by the Public Land Law,

Still, or should remain as,
trppc ^berlands. The trouble is that when the
fnr!L soil, the lands within the

Rut 1 hpp ^ P^^nting agricultural crops

lands are ^nn^i ^^riions of the forests or timber-

Dublic forestlands, then by

the one hanH a ^ Forest Development or

should agree to^ de i ^ Lands, on the other

already avaUable to fepotitiofto f '

purposes of agriculture. S‘be"toe S”, ^^ruere :i

1 H difference between minera

lands, timberlands and agricultural lands.

MR. OPLE. May I ask the Committee, therefore,
what Its position is - whether under this definition of

“arable lands” and “all agricultural lands” proposed to
be distributed under Section 5, that the riglit of the
kaingineros to their own piece of land already released
by the Bureau of Forest Development will not be pre-
judiced in the light of this agrarian refonn program that
is before the Commission?

MR. BENNAGEN. Ang mga kaingineros ay dapat
kasali sa mga beneficiaries of agrarian reform, pero
iyong bahagi ng gubat na kanilang tinatamnan, dahil sa
kawalan ng patag na kanilang matatamnan, ay hiiuli
kasali sa agrarian reform. Ito ay sa dahilang by defini-
tion, according to existing laws, pag lampas na sa 18
percent degrees slope, hindi na kasama sa agricultural
land kundi sa forest. Kaya mahalagang may distinction
iyong kaingincro mismo at ang kanilang lupang tina-
tamnan.

MR. OPLE. Does the Commissioner mean that above
an 18 percent degrees slope, this is no longer covered by
agrarian reform?

MR. BENNAGEN. No, kasi hindi pa iyon A and D. It
is' not classified as alienable and disposable. It belongs to
the classification of forest land.

MR. OPLE. I hope that the Commissioner’s interpre-
tation is correct. But I can assure him right now that
there are millions of hectares in the Philippines above an
18 percent degrees slope and are considered eminent y
cultivable.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, that is right. As a matter of
fact, there was a big debate on the issue of 1 8 percen ,
because 18 percent considers only the slope and not le
other variables that have to do with productivity.

MR. OPLE. The Committee on the Executive, there-
fore, should keep an open mind about this limit,
because I think it might just succeed in excluding
hundreds of thousands of hectares from agrarian reform.

MR. BENNAGEN. No. I am merely referring to the
1 8 percent in relation to this concept which is being
subjected to debate, partly in relation to ancestral lands
and partly in relation to the other variable, such as
factors of productivity that have to be taken into
consideration, not only the slope.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Concepcion be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.

MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you. Madam President.

The term “agricultural land” as found in other
provisions of the Constitution, particularly those refer-

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

ring to the conservation of natural resources and public
utilities, apparently partakes a different meaning when
used in connection with land refonn. For purposes of
consistency and uniformity, therefore, I believe the use
of the tenn “agricultural lands” as applied in this
particular provision should be made to connote the
same meaning when applied to other provisions in the
Constitution . . . the same policy as observed in the use
of the term “just compensation.”

Under these provisions on conservation of natural
resources, all lands which are neither timberlands nor
mineral lands fall under the category of agricultural
land. The reason, according to the authorities, is that
lands are per se agricultural. However, in view of the
wealth in mineral deposits as may be found in parti-
cular areas, these areas, although rich in agriculture, may
be classified as mineral lands as determined by the
national government.

For similar reasons, forest lands are classified as
timberlands, although they have no forests but, by
reason of topography, they are suitable watersheds.
These areas rich in agriculture are, however, not con-
sidered as agricultural lands but are classified as timber-
lands. Ironically, some of these timberlands are now
denuded.

It is all right to have different categories of agricul-
tural lands, but these categories of agricultural lands
under land reform were not found under the old Consti-
tution. Hence, the use of the term under land reform
would have a different meaning when referring to the
provisions on the conservation of natural resources, or
vice versa. It would create a great confusion if the term
“agricultural lands” were to connote a different
meaning when used in different provisions of the

Constitution.

Thank you. Madam President.

Now, in the committee report on the Article on the
National Economy and Patrimony, we recommended
that we go back to the 1935 classification, as suggested
by Commissioner Concepcion, so that we just have
three — mineral, timber and agricultural — and then we
add a fourth one, national parks, which is the innova-
tion of tliis Constitution after a lot of public hearings
where we got this recommendation. We will discuss this
at the opportune time. So we are suggesting four classifi-
cations now, tlie tliree tliat appeared in the 1935
Constitution plus national parks.

I agree that it may not be necessary to add the word
‘^ARABLE” because I think tliere is already a juris-
prudential definition of “agricultural.” And since this is
something that is subject more to further determination
of the legislature because, as already mentioned by
Commissioner Bennagen, there are all sorts of techno-
logical changes that may render certain types of steep
mountains arable in the future. And as this body pro-
bably knows, there are a lot of industrial tree plantations
that are much more agricultural really than timberland.
There ^e a lot of fast-growing trees that are being
grown in the same way as we grow sugar cane so the
distinction between timberland and agricultural land is
becoming thinner and thinner. That is why in the com-
mittee report on the Article on the National Economy
and Patrimony, we are recommending a new provision
that the legislature or Congress should fix the definition
of forest lands which should not be diminished there-
after, but the fixing would be subject to a lot of studies
because Congress would have to get experts to deter-
mine exactly what is timberland and what is agricultural
land.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the proponent of the
amendment insists on a vote on his amendment.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, for a final comme
the same Padilla amendment, I ask that To
Villftpas be reco?ni7pH

qXI tne A cuiiciiuia

niissioner Villegas be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. It is Commissioner Padilla now
because Commissioner Jamir withdrew his amendment.
How does Commissioner Padilla’s amendment read?

the president. Commissioner Villegas is recog- MR. PADILLA. Delete the word “all” so that the line
nized. would read “just distribution of agricultural lands.”

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam Pr^cin

formation to anticipate reallv on ’ some in-
‘ X irn tViA M * , discussion on the

^ticle on t e National Economy and Patrimony,

because er are a lot of relevant data on the specific
classification ot natural resources:

If we will rernember, in the 1973 Constitution, lands
were classified into too many categories and this gave
the Marcos regime tremendous elbow room in actually
reclassifying lands, especially for the benefit of the
Ministry of Human Settlements. If we will remember
also, that regime reclassified lands into agricultural,
industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement,
mineral, timber or forest, and grazing lands.

the president. Do we have
Committee?

any reaction from the

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, we do not accept the
amendment.

VOTING

ini: rrvnaiutJNl. The Committee does not accep
the amendment. So let us proceed to vote then.

Those m favor of deleting the word “all” before the
word agncultural” will please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Those against will please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)

The results show 7 votes in favor and 26 against; the
amendment is lost.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Ipinakikiusap lamang sa aming
mga bisita dito sa session hall na huwag pumalakpak o
gumawa ng anumang reaksyon kung may botohan o
talakayan dito sa Komisyon.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, before we move over
to the next section, 1 ask that Commissioner Sarmiento
be recognized for a perfecting amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-
nized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, I move for the
insertion of the word AND between “priorities” and

reasonable.” The reason for this is the consequence of
our decision to delete the words “and other conditions.”

THE PRESIDENT. So the phrase reads “such priori-
ties AND reasonable.”

Is this accepted by the Committee?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, Madam President, we accept it.

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.

On Section 6, we notice the incorporation of the
words “research and development” as an amendment to
the original proposal. I am for its deletion because re-
search and development, if development is related to
research, would already be included in the word “tech-
nology.”

MR. BENGZON. Is Commissioner Davide talking of
Section 6?

MR. DAVIDE. Section 6, page 2.

MR. BENGZON. Can we vote on Section 5 first?

Madam President, we have not voted on the whole of
Section 5. If there are no more amendments to Section

5, we request that the body vote on the whole section,
as amended.

MR. TADEO. Madam President, 1 seek clarification
on this very crucial part of Section 5. Ito pong “just
compensation,” kung ang kahulugan nito ay hindi ang
reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay under the right
of preemption and right of redemption, 1 would like
to cite the case of Valdez vs. Balmocena, CAGR No.
01487-R, October 7, 1976. Dito po ay ipinaliwanag ang
right of redemption, na kapag ibinenta ng panginoong
may-ari ng lupa ang lupang sinasaka ng magbubukid sa
iba, may karapatan ang magbubukid na maghabol at ang
babayaran ng magbubukid ay hindi batay sa usapan ng
vendee at ng panginoong may-ari ng lupa kundi batay sa
reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay. Kung hindi po
ito ang kahulugan ng “just compensation,” ay binabawi
ko po ang boto ko.

MR. BENNAGEN. Ang pagkaunawa natin dito sa
“just compensation,” isinasaalang-alang dito ang kakaya-
han ng magsasaka at kung hindi niya ito makakaya, dito
papasok ang pamahalaan. Kaya, batay din ito sa afforda-
ble cost na makakaya ng magbubukid o sa kanyang
limitasyon. lyon ang pagkaunawa natin kanginang
umaga. Maaari ring market value, kaya ang primary con-
sideration ay ang kakayalian ng magsasaka. Kung ano
ang hindi kaya ng magbubukid, dadagdagan ng pamaha-
laan. That is our understanding. Kailangang just din ang
kabayaran doon sa pagmumulan ng lupa.

MR. TADEO. That is only a clarification.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, may we vote now
on the whole section?

MR. RODRIGO. May I request that the whole section
be read?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, may we read the whole section.

THE PRESIDENT. Please read the whole section.

BISHOP BACANI. Just a moment, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. Do we understand that there has
been an addition of meaning or a change of meaning
which was explained this morning? I ask this because I
think it was insisted that “just compensation” is the
compensation paid to the landowner.

MS. NIEVA. To the landowner. Yes.

BISHOP BACANI. And that is the prime considera-
tion there?

MR. BENGZON. Yes.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

BISHOP BACANI. Whether it will then be subsidized
by the government, 1 hope that that is not lost.

MR. BENGZON. No, it is not lost. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. Section 5 now reads as follows: “The
State shall by law undertake an agrarian reform pro-
gram founded on the basic right of farmers and regular
farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farm workers, receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake
the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject
to such priorities and reasonable retention hmits as
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental or equity considerations and subject to
the payment of just compensations. The State shall
respect the rights of small landowners in determin-
ing retention limits. The State shall further provide
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.”

MR. REGALADO. Madam President, just a clarifica-
tion. Was there a comma after “farm workers” so that
the phrase “who are landless” will refer to both regular
farm workers and farmers?

MS. NIEVA. Yes. I am sorry I did not mention the
comma.

MR. REGALADO. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Chairman of the Commit-
tee please read again the last two sentences.

MS. NIEVA. The State shall respect the rights of
small landowners in determining retention limits. The
State shall further provide incentives for voluntary

land-sharing.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of this proposed
amendment to Section 5, as read by the honorable
Chairman, will please raise their hand. ( Several Members
raised their hand.)

Those against will please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 36 votes in favor and none against;
the amendment to Section 5 is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Davide be recognized to amend Section 6.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.

The amendment on Section 6 would only be to delete
the newly incorporated words “research and develop-

ment” on the second from the last line, the reason being
that this is already included in the word “technology.”
We cannot have technology without research and its
development.

MR. BENNAGEN. How about deleting “and develop-
ment” only?

MR. DAVIDE. No, I propose to delete “research and
development.”

MR. BENNAGEN. Let me explain why I insist that
“research” should be here.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen may
proceed.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, Madam President.

In various studies on agrarian reform, it has been
shown that many agricultural practices are location-
specific; meaning, that agricultural practices in the
United States, in China, or in India, are not necessarily
transferable to Philippine conditions. And even within
Philippine conditions, specifically because of the great
variability of ecological conditions, one cannot easily
generalize, and, therefore, it is necessary to have site-
specific or location-specific research and development. I
am willing to have “and development” be stricken off,
but not “research.”

MR. DAVIDE. I will agree, in view of the explana-
tion. So, only the words “and development” should be
stricken off.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, may I be
recognized. This is an amendment to Commissioner
Davide’s.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid
be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is

recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I am glad that “research” is
retained, but I wonder if we could include TRAINING
instead of “development” the deletion of which I
accept, so that the phrase reads: “research and TRAIN-
ING” because “training” is very important.

Madam President, I beUeve that
training is already included in “technology” because
how can the government transfer technology to the
farmers and the farm workers without the necessary
training for said technology? So it is mherent in tech-
nology.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Is the Commissioner satisfied? MS. ROSARIO BRAID. It is accepted.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I withdraw then with that THE PRESIDENT. How about the Committee?
explanation.

MS. NIEVA. If it is acceptable to Commissioner
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other comment? Rosario Braid, the Committee accepts.

MS. NIEVA. We accept the amendment of Com-
missioner Davide deleting the words “and develop-
ment,” so the phrase reads: “appropriate technology
and research.”

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote now on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide which
has been accepted by the Committee?

Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is ap-
proved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, for another amend-
ment to the same section, I ask that Commissioner
Rosario Braid be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, on th
^ propose to delete “and marketing as
substitute it with the words SUPPOR'

rial n A adequate finar

S SUPPORT SERVICES.” The reason i

han;o f Other important services; namely, pos

rliiH ^ ®^hnology and extension services. If we ir
e marketmg, then we might as well include all th
omer support services. Post harvest technology, if I ma
xp am, includes storage, abattoirs and processir
I ^ different from marketing sy

nnri^’ delete “and marketing assistance

na in lieu thereof, insert SUPPORT SERVICES aft(
the word “production ”

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment of Commissioners Rosario Braid
and Davide which has been accepted by the Commit-
tee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment
is approved.

MR. RAMA. On the same section. Madam President,
I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.

REV. RIGOS. Madam President, I propose a minor
amendment in the first portion of the sentence which
says:

The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farm-
workers, of cooperatives and other independent farmer s

organization and land owners . . .

by placing the word “landowners” immediately after
“farm workers” so that we refer to people first —
farmers, farm workers and landowners — then followed
by cooperatives and organizations which are associa-
tions. So we just put them together.

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts. Madam Pres-
ident.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? ( Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. For the last amendment to Section 6, I
ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

me^f NIEVA. Madam President, we accept the amend-

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-

MR. DAVIDE. This is a very minor amendment.
Madam President. After the word “organization” on the
third line, add S and transpose the apostrophe on
“farmer’s” to after “s,” so it should be “farmers’
ORGANIZATIONS.”

THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept?

Sa^ce” “and mark

assistance and addmg what have been ctateH

OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES. So! atr
delete the word and and after “assistance ” ad
following; AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to Com-
missioner Rosario Braid?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, it is just a small spelling error, a
perfecting amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. There are no more proponents to amend
Section 6, Madam President, so I ask that we take a vote
on the whole Section 6.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MS. NIEVA. Section 6 reads: “The State shall recog-
nize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners,
of cooperatives and other independent farmers’ organi-
zations to participate in the planning, organizing, and
management of the program and shall provide support
to agriculture through appropriate technology and
research, and adequate financial, production, marketing,
and other support services.”

MR. DAVIDE. It should be “marketing assistance.”

May I point out tliat in Indonesia this is the principal
mode of land reform where approximately five million
people have been transferred from overcrowded Java to
the outer islands of Indonesia througli what tliey call a
transmigration policy which, of course, is supported by
irrigation, one year of free subsistence, donation of all
the tools required for cultivation, and amenities like
schools and clinics.

So it is in that spirit that we propose this amendment.
Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, 1 am sorry. It is “marketing assist-
ance, and other support services.”

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. May we ask Commissioner Ople whether
the tenn “WORKERS” would include the landless
farmers or industrial workers.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Can we not substitute “or-
ganizing” with ORGANIZATION? I think the phrase
should be “the planning, ORGANIZATION. . .”

MR. BENGZON. We accept, yes.

MS. NIEVA. We accept.

MR- DE LOS REYES. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to Section
6? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is

approved.

MR. RAMA. On Section 7, Madam President, I ask
that Commissioner Ople be recognized.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President.

On behalf of Commissioner Nolledo and myself, may
we propose an amendment in the form of an additional
sentence which can be indented as a new paragraph
under Section 7, which reads as foUows: THE STATE
may resettle the LANDLESS WORKERS IN ITS
OWN AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO THE BENEFICIARIES ACCORD-
ING TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.

The reason for this amendment. Madam President, is
that the State itself may want to establish model estates
for agrarian reform and, as a matter of fact, this was the
preeminent form of agrarian reform initiated by Pres-
ident Magsaysay in 1953 when the NARRA Settlement
was established in Palawan and earlier when the EDCOR
was established in Mindanao. This will complement the
first part of Section 7 which deals with the lands of the
public domain suitable to agriculture under lease or
concession, but in this case it is the State that sets up
the model agrarian reform estates at its own expense
just like in the case of the two examples that I cited.

MR. OPLE. I am referring mainly, in this instance, to
the landless agricultural workers who do not even till
their own plot of land and who, according to the statis-
tics of the NEDA, are now, far in excess, numerically
speaking, of those engaged in tenancy or sharecropping.
And that is why as the arable land keeps stable and the
population keeps exploding, we have this phenomenon
of millions of landless rural workers who can no longer
be accommodated in the farms and, therefore, whose
prospect, unlike that of the tenant farmers and the
regular farm workers, for ever acquiring land is nil and
whose prospect for finding jobs outside of agriculture is
also probably nil. And that is the reason why this is just
an additional permissive mandate to the State to under-
take its own agricultural estates where the landless
workers may be given the opportunity to engage in
productive work and ultimately own the lands that
compromise the government’s own agricultural estates.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President.

We just would like to clear up the definition of the
word “WORKERS from Commissioner Ople because
it might give the impression that it refers to industrial
or commercial workers. But I understand from his state-
ment that he is limiting the word “workers” to farmers
and regular farm workers.

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President.

MR. Maybe we can change the word

“WORKERS” to FARMERS AND REGULAR FARM-
WORKERS.

MR. OPLE. I would have no objection to that,
although that is a longer term.

MR. SUAREZ. And then after the word “DIS-
TRIBUTED, would the Commissioner have any objec-

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

tion to inserting the phrase TO THEM IN THE MAN-
NER PROVIDED BY LAW?

MR. OPLE. I want to thank Commissioner Suarez for
a major improvement on the language of the proposed
amendment.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

As the proposal would stand, it reads: “THE STATE
MAY RESETTLE THE LANDLESS FARMERS AND
REGULAR FARMWORKERS IN ITS OWN AGRI-
CULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE DIS-
TRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
BY LAW.”

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President, I accept.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. May we ask Commissioner Opie
one more question? Is the idea of the State having its
own agricultural estates for government to set up and
manage these agricultural estates?

MR. OPLE. Yes, this will be subject to the provisions
of Section 6 in which organizations of farmers, workers
and landowners — in this case, the government is the
landowner — cooperatives and other independent
organizations shall participate in the organization,
management and direction of the program.

MR. SUAREZ. ILiank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople as revised
by the Committee?

MR. OPLE. Commissioners Ople and Nolledo, Madam
President.

MR. BENNAGEN. What would be the relationship
of the workers to the State and to the agricultural
estate? They will just be employed agricultural workers.

MR. OPLE. No. TTiey are resettled there and the term
of resettlement is clear in the legal literature. This means
that they are potential owners of these lands upon meet-
ing certain standards as may be provided by law.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?
MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN. In other words, at some future
time, these agricultural estates will be dissolved as State
agricultural estates?

THE PRESIDENT,

nized.

Commissioner Padilla is recog-

^'^ays insist on “REGUL>^
^ WORKERS”? Precisely, those who are n
regUiar y employed may be the better beneficiaries

recipients of this State-organized agricultural sett
ments.

MR. OPLE. Yes, and they may, of course, establish
their own voluntary system of associating with each
other through a cooperative, if they like, or some other
mode.

MR. BENNAGEN. Already independent of the
State?

MR OPLE. 1 support, the PadUla amendment to my
amendment with the permission of the Committee.

MR. SUAREZ. The Committee would have no objec-
the descriptive word “REGU-
as applied to farm workers. Madam President.

MR. OPLE. Yes.

MR. BENNAGEN. I thank Commissioner Ople .

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, could I volunteer
an information just to concretize the proposal of
Commissioner Ople?

MR. OPLE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Will
the amendment please.

Commissioner Suarez read

STATE MAY I

wriRkFR^TN ITQ FARMERS AND FAP

AGRICULTURAL ESTAT
WHICH SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN T
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.”

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment to Section 7?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas may
please proceed.

MR. VILLEGAS. Malaysia has a very successful
model that implements the concept of Minister Ople
through a government corporation called FELDA,
Federal Land Development Corporation which actually
distributed small plots of land to farmers. And through
a nucleus estate which the government put up that
would process, for example, rubber, they helped thou-
sands of small holders of rubber trees to actually be
productive in the growing of this very important crop.
And little by little, the small holders learned how to

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

get together on their own and form cooperatives. This
Malaysian model is something that a lot of Filipinos
are looking at, not only for the government to imple-
ment but also for private sector groups to implement.

MR. LERUM. Madam President, may I be recog-
nized?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Lerum is recog-
nized.

MR. LERUM. I am thinking about industrial workers
who lost their employment but want to go back to the
province and engage in farming. Are we not dis-
criminating against tliem if we limit the benefit only
to farm workers?

MR. OPLE. I am inclined to support Commissioner
Lerum ’s intervention for laid-off industrial workers
who want to go back home and who in the meantime
may have no land to go back to.

So, I do not know if the Committee, at this point in
time, would be able to accommodate.

MS. QUESADA. Our understanding is that when
these workers go to the provinces and end up becoming
workers in these agricultural estates, then they become
farm workers. So, they would be entitled under this
provision.

MR. OPLE. So, they are embraced within the scope
of “workers” here?

MS. QUESADA. Yes.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. LERUM. Madam President, as long as that is on
record, I am satisfied.

MS. NIEVA. Therefore, the entire additional para-
graph of Section 7 reads as follows: “THE STATE MAY
RESETTLE LANDLESS FARMERS AND FARM-
WORKERS IN ITS OWN AGRICULTURAL ESTATES
WHICH SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE
manner PROVIDED BY LAW.”

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Villegas want
to say something?

MR. VILLEGAS. Before we vote on Section 7, may
I get some clarification about the phrase “in the dis-
position of other natural resources”?

As we had already discussed previously, there are
only three types of public land - mineral, timber or
agricultural. Of course, if we decide on the national
parks later on, it would be the fourth.

MR. BENGZON. We are not yet on that; we are still
voting on the Ople-Nolledo amendment.

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
particular amendment of Commissioners Ople and
Nolledo which has been accepted by the Committee?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Romulo be recognized to make an amendment
to the same section.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Romulo is recog-
nized.

MR. ROMULO. Actually I had an anterior amend-
ment, but 1 did not want to disturb Commissioner
Ople.

THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner may please
proceed.

MR. ROMULO. On line 2, I propose that between
the words “reform” and “whenever,” insert the phrase
OR STEWARDSHIP to enable the State to dispose of
lands of the public domain under the concept of ste-
wardship.

MS NIEVA. So, after “agrarian reform” the proposal
is to insert “OR STEWARDSHIP.”

MR. ROMULO. Yes, so the line would read: “The
State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform OR
stewardship whenever applicable in accordance
with law ...”

MR. TINGSON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog-
nized.

MR. TINGSON. I would like to support this amend-
ment, because the word “STEWARDSHIP” must be
applied to the concept of landownership. We are not
really the owners of land. When we really analyze it,
Madam President, it is God who owns the land. We are
only but stewards, so 1 would like to support the
amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Romulo ex-
plain?

MR. ROMULO. I have explained it. Madam President.

MR. BENGZON. The Committee accepts. Madam
President.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Villegas
have any remark on this?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President, may I
clarify this phrase: “disposition of other natural

resources.” I think only agricultural lands are alienable
in the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Timberlands and mineral lands are not alienable. What
is really the objective of applying agrarian reform to
“disposition of other natural resources”?

BISHOP BACANI. So that I may vote intelligently,
may I just ask Commissioner Romulo to explain what
he means by the principle of stewardship, because
from the philosophical and theological point of view,
I find that very laudable; however, I do not know
whether there is a legal meaning to it which may be
different from that.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the word “dis-
position” there does not mean transfer of title. It may
mean, for example, in the case of forest areas, that in
the giving of concessions, the people in the community
around the forest should be given some preferential
attention or treatment. So, that does not necessarily
mean transfer of title, and the addition of the words
‘ OR STEWARDSHIP” probably clarifies it even more.

MR. VILLEGAS. And so, even in mineral lands the
Committee is also thinking of small-scale mining?

MR. MONSOD. Yes, because as ■ the Commissioner
knows, that is also included in the Article on the Na-
tional Economy and Patrimony where we talk about
small-scale utilization of natural resources.

MR. VILLEGAS. As long as the word “disposition”
IS eg^y understood not to be synonymous with
alienation, then I think it is clear.

MR. MONSOD. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized for an amendment to the same section.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Azcuna is recog-
nized.

President, I just would like
to add the words OR UTILIZATION after “disposition”
o ma e it clear that it really refers more to the use of
°r resources since only public lands are

MR. MONSOD. We accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee accepts.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President may we iust
pJam something. While the word “disposHkj^- doe
necessarily mean transferring legal 11^ we 1 env
situations where land which is of the public doma
because we say “including lands of the public don
suitable to agnculture - becomes available for
position when the State changes the classification
we accept the amendment “OR UTILIZATION ”

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President, I propose
it in the legal sense actually; that is, that the individual
would have free use or free occupancy but he would
not be given a legal title to the land. That is what we
call in law as usufructuary.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Nais ko lang idagdag dito iyong
nabanggit na ni Commissioner Ople kangina tungkol sa
kaso ng mga kainginero. Mahalaga kasi sa mga lugar na
classified as forests pero puwedeng agricultural — ka-
sama dito iyong tree plantations na nabanggit ni Com-
missioner Villegas — na maaari nilang gamitin ang lupa
kasama ang principles of agrarian reform; meaning,
mayroong complementary structures and services that
would support the use of forest lands for agricultural
purposes. Ito iyong agro-foresty na tinatawag. Kaya ang
punto dito, bagaman hindi ibibigay sa kanila ang titulo
ng lupa, magagamit naman nila ang lupa for a certain
period of time subject to renewal. In practice, umaabot
ito ng 25 years o 50 years pero the title is never given
to them; ito ay kanilang kontrata sa pamahalaan but
subject to the principles of agrarian reform. Ang ibig
nitong sabihin, susuportahan ito ng pamahalaan sapag-
kat sa karanasan ng integrated social forestry program,
kung walang suporta iyan batay dito sa principles of
agrarian reform, lalong nasisira ang gubat at hindi
rin umaasenso ang kabuhayan ng kainginero.

MR. RAMA. Since there are no more amendments. . .

THE PRESIDENT. Shall we proceed first to vote on
the Romulo and Azcuna amendments as incorporated
by the Committee? Will the Committee please read the
first three lines?

MS. NIEVA. “The State shall apply the principles of
agrarian reform OR STEWARDSHIP whenever appli-
cable in accordance with law IN the disposition OR
UTILIZATION of other natural resources ...”

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote on those amend-
ments first.

Is there any objection?

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, in Section 5, the
State shall undertake an agrarian reform program to
enable the fanners and regular farm workers to own
the land. As a matter of fact, this was the subject of
my interpellation — ownership of the land.

Now, in this Section 7, we use “STEWARDSHIP”
but we also say we apply the principles of agrarian
reform. Does this mean that the words “to own” also
apply to Section 7?

MS. NIEVA. I think that was explained, that in
many instances where the lands belong to the govern-
ment and may not be alienated, they will not receive
the title. As it was stated here as an example, the
600,000 kaingineros — of whom Commissioner Ople
was very concerned — can take advantage of the utiliza-
tion of these natural resources, receiving the support of
the State. And this is what we mean by the principles
of agrarian reform — that the State shall give them all
the support and the assistance that they would need to
be successful in their utilization of these natural re-
sources, but they will not receive the titles.

MR. RODRIGO. Not to own?

MS. NIEVA. Not to own.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I would like to
ask Commissioner Ople because he said tliat in the case
of what we call government estates, eventually these
will be partitioned so that the farmers can own them.

MR. OPLE. This will lead directly to ownership.
Madam President.

In the case of the agricultural estates established
by the government itself and where the government
is the landowner, there is no obstacle to the distri-
bution of the lands on an ownership basis. In the
case of the kaingineros, I think what prevents the
conferment of titles of ownership is precisely certain
classifications of lands. So that if ownership cannot
yet be vested because of these problems of classi-
fications, then a stewardship contract is issued to
them which, I understand from the Ministry of Natural
Resources, can even be negotiable in terms of a colla-
teral in a bank. It is that important a piece of paper,
not yet equivalent to ownership, but it vests certain
attributes of ownership to the kaingineros who have
been issued this stewardship contract.

I think this is related to the usufruct right that
Commissioner Romulo had earlier talked about, which
means that under conditions of usufruct one is, for all
purposes, the owner except that there might be no
infinity built into his ownership. Most usufruct would

terminate in 50 years. In Europe usually it is 99 years.
And so these are all the attributes of ownership except
in perpetuity.

MR. RODRIGO. There is no such thing as infinite
in this world. So when I say, “I am the owner,” it is
understood that it is not infinite because I am not
infinite; not even this world is infinite.

What I would hke to clarify is this: What is the
underlying philosophy of Section 7? Can the bene-
ficiaries of Section 7 own, or may they only be stewards
of the land? I ask so because in Section 5, it is owner-
ship.

MR. OPLE. The Committee can speak for itself,
but before I resume my seat, may I just say that as soon
as the conditions ripen into ownership, then nothing
should prevent vesting the full ownership in the holder
of a stewardship or a usufruct contract.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. That is why I come back to my
question: What is the underlying philosophy of Section
7? Would the farmers under this section eventually
own the land, or would they be only stewards of the
land?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, it would depend
on the natural resources we are talking about.

MR. RODRIGO. Let us say disposable public land.

MR. MONSOD. If it is an alienable and disposable
public land, then they may acquire title. As a matter
of fact, in applying the principles of agrarian reform,
the State should start with its own backyard, which
are alienable and disposable public lands suitable to

agriculture.

MR. RODRIGO. In this Section 7, is the philosophy
of “land to the filler” also apphcable as it is applicable
in Section 5? In Section 5, the heirs or the children of
the owner may not inherit tlie land; the owner may
not dispose of nor sell the land. Is that true also of
Section 7?

MR. MONSOD. Yes, it would apply, but it would
be applied a little differently if we were talking about
forest land. For example, where the land itself is not
alienable but one has a concession to utilize the forest,
then the laws on forestry would apply, except that
there would be preferential treatment of the com-
munities.

MR. RODRIGO. I am speaking of disposable, alien-
able pubUc land.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, it would apply.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. RODRIGO. So the same limitations on the
ownership of the farmers and farm workers under
Section 5 would apply to the beneficiaries of Section
7?

MR. MONSOD. That is right, that is precisely why
we say “the principles of agrarian reform.”

MR. RODRIGO. I thank the Commissioner.

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote?

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, we just want to
emphasize that in Section 7, the coverage is wider
because there is mention here of “other natural resour-
ces.” And so, in the case of timberlands and mineral
lands, the principles of agarian reform by way of owner-
ship and grant of title will not apply. That is where the
principle of stewardship will apply.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor the proposed
amendments of Commissioners Romulo and Azcuna
as incorporated by the Committee will please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand. )

Those against will please raise their hand. (No Mem-
ber raised his hand.)

tv, ^®sults show 31 votes in favor and none against;
the two amendments are approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask the Chair-
man of the Committee to read the entire section as
amended.

Section 7 shall now read as follows:
Ihe State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform
or stewardship whenever applicable in accordance with
aw in the disposition or utilization of other natural
resources, including lands of the public domain suitable
0 agriculture under lease or concession, subject to
pnor rights, homestead rights of small settlers and the

rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral
lands.

The State may resettle landless farmers and farm-
workers m its own agricultural estates which shall
e IS n ute to them in the manner provided by

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?

MR. TADEO. Madam President, for clarification.
Prior rights refer to previous rights of indigenous cul-
tural communities and settlers over the land on which
they live and cultivate or use for livelihood.

MR. BENGZON. That is among others. Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. So are we ready now to vote?

Is there any objection to Section 7, as amended?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; Section 7, as amended,
is approved.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair calls for a suspension
of the session for a few minutes.

It was 4:57 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:29 p.m., the session was resumed with the
Honorable Florenz D. Regalado presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Com-
missioner de los Reyes be recognized to present amend-
ments to Section 8.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de los Reyes is recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. This amendment is a joint
amendment of Commissioner Teodulo Natividad, myself
and the honorable Presiding Officer.

On Section 8, line 1, delete the word “preferential
between the words “the” and “rights”; insert the word
PREFERENTIAL between the words “the” and “use”
on line 3; and insert the word COMMUNAL between
the words “oF’ and “marine” on the same line, so
that the sentence will read: “The State shall protect the
rights of marginal fishermen and local communities
to the PREFERENTIAL use of COMMUNAL marine
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore,
particularly municipal fishing grounds.”

The other sentence will be amended correspondingly
so that the section will not be too long.

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts.

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NATIVIDAD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Natividad is recognized.

MR. NATIVIDAD. Will the distinguished proponent
please yield to some questions?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, willingly.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. NATIVIDAD. The phrase “direct or communal”
was deleted by the Committee. I am with the Commis-
sioner in this amendment to retain “communal” because
it might give rise to an impression that communal
fishing grounds — as we know it now and as should
be reserved in the future by future Congresses — are
being frowned upon. 1 welcome the use of the words
“communal fishing grounds” because this is the only
way we can give preferential rights to marginal or poor
fishennen. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin, ang mahihirap
na mangingisda, katulad din ng mga mahihirap na mag-
sasaka, ay isang kahig, isang tuka lamang. Hindi po nila
kayang mabuhay kung sasabihin nating mangisda sila
sa dakong ilalim ng karagatan, sapagkat wala silang
kasangkapan o walang bangka. Therefore, even if we
place in the Constitution the word “preferential,” it
is a hollow word if we do not reserve an area for them
in terms of communal fishing grounds where those in
the same situation in life - iyong mahihirap na ang
tanging kasangkapan ay iyon lamang generator, isang
bangka at isang maliit na lambat — can earn their live-
lihood.

The other thing I would like to note in this amend-
ment, in which 1 am joining the Commissioner, is the
matter of municipal fishing grounds. Doon po sa lala-
wigan ng Bulakan ay mayroong tinatawag na propyos
_ propyos ng Hagonoy. propyos ng Paombong, atbp.
Ang ibig sabihin ng propyos ay municipal fishponds
or municipal fishing grounds, which are properties
of the municipality since time immemorial. I think
we should use another term to avoid confusion. And
these fishponds are not communal fishing grounds.
Sa communal fishing grounds, basta mababaw na pook
ng dagat, lahat ay makapanghuhuli ng hipon at lahat
ng uri ng maldiit na isda. Hindi bawal sa sinuman
ang pumasok diyan, basta’t hindi lang gagamit ng
heavy equipment. lyan ang concept ng communal
fishing grounds. So I would suggest that “municipal
fishing grounds” should have another name because
they might be confused with the municipal fishponds
that we have in many provinces. Sa inga propyos, hindi
maaaring manghuli ng isda because these are fishponds
being leased or operated by municipalities for added
income of the municipalities. And nobody can fish
there because these are all encircled by dikes. There-
fore, they should not be confused with these municipal
fishing grounds in this article which, to my mind, are
communal fishing grounds.

I also agree with the use of the word “conservation”
because I believe that the State should not only develop
tliese areas but should also conserve or protect them
from foreign encorachment and from encroachment
of rich fishermen or fishpond owners. Sapagkat sa
aktuwal na situwasyon, maraniing lalawigan ang dapat
nating tingnan. The borders of communal fishing
grounds are fishponds. And the fishpond owners, by
operation of law, extend the boundaries of their fish-
ponds. Ang tawag namin dito sa Bulacan ay “naglala-
bas ng palaisdaan,” naglalagay ng pilapil upang sakupin

ang palaisdaang bayan. That is why I would like to inject
into this debate that the conservation of these communal
fishponds should include their protection from en-
croachment of rich fishermen and fishpond owners,
wiiich has been the root of many historic struggles
between the rich and the poor, in this case, between
the rich fishermen and the poor fishermen. Kaya kung
tayo man ay nagpapakita ngayon ng pagmamahal sa
mga magsasaka, nais nating sabihing kasama sa ating
pagmamalasakit dito ang mahihirap na mangingisda.

Salamat po.

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE. I would like to inquire from the
proponent certain matters.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. Would the use of the word “COM-
MUNAL” as proposed by the Commissioner now
qualify marine and fishing resources?

MR. DE LOS REYES. That is correct.

MR. DAVIDE. So, may Congress set aside certain
areas as communal marine and fishing areas?

MR. DE LOS REYES. No. Pursuant to Commissioner
Davide’s explanation yesterday, Congress may not do
that because all these lakes are communal.

MR. DAVIDE. That was precisely the idea of my
earlier proposal to delete the words “the direct or
communal use.” Now, under the Commissioner’s pro-
posal, he would in effect allow Congress to define what
area within the marine and fishing resource area should
be considered communal, not the entire area itself.

MR. DE LOS REYES. On the contrary, it will pre-
vent Congress from doing what the Commissioner
envisions.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, under this proposal,
the meaning would be that all marine and fishing
resources must be communal.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. If that is the meaning, I would have
no objection to it. The purpose of my inquiry was
precisely to prohibit Congress from defining a particular
area as the only communal area.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What
is the position of the Committee?

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we just
ask the proponent a clarificatory question?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. Is our understanding correct that
the communal character would be applied to fishing
grounds and resources and not to their use?

MR. DE LOS REYES. No, the use is preferential.
In the light of the query yesterday of Commissioner
Ople whether, for example, fishermen from Bulacan
going to Quezon wUl be denied the use of the communal
fishing grounds, the answer of the Committee was that
that was not the intention, but with preferential right
to marginal fishermen and local communities.

MR. DE LOS REYES. None, because “communal”
qualifies marine and fishing resources.

MR. MONSOD. What about the fishponds, what do
we call those?

MR. DE LOS REYES. The fishponds not situated
in lakes and rivers are different; these are already
private property. That is precisely the intention of the
amendment, to do away with fish pens situated within
lakes and rivers which properly belong to the people
and to the State. Under land reform, we are taking away
private property and giving it to the poor, but with
regard to lakes and rivers, we are doing the reverse.
The lakes which are communal in nature are instead
being given or allocated to the rich to the exclusion
of the marginal fishermen.

MR. MONSOD. Is the Commissioner saying that
with this definition, fish pens would no longer be
allowed?

MR. SUAREZ. Because as originally proposed by the
Committee, it would be communal use rather than
communal marine and fishing resources. But the in-
tention is clear here that what the Commissioner wants
to e owned by the community are the fishing resour-
ces and grounds?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR SUAREZ. And the use will be preferential in
character for the marginal fishermen?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

qufstionf ^ proponent a

MR. DE LOS REYES. That will be the ultimate
effect in communal lakes.

MR. MONSOD. What about Laguna de Bay? Ui
specific terms, would this Article now prohibit the
granting of licenses to have fish pehs in Laguna de
Bay?

MR. DE LOS REYES. That is the intent of the
amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO. May I ask the proponent a few
questions?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Con
missioner Monsod is recognized.

iv ^ Commissioner correc

arp nnw marine and fishing resourc

of the queSon S ^^st an amplificatic

Article contemplate thauiw"" ®

are now communal, or doel S^Tha

SVSL^rrl^rJ^r* ™ri,

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO. What does the Commissioner
mean by “marginal”?

MR. DE LOS REYES. “Marginal” is not my term;
that is the definition of the Committee and, therefore,
the Committee should answer that question.

MR. DE CASTRO. May I know the meaning of
“marginal”?

MR. DE LOS REYES. It is the nrpfp.. i

1 j p- u- la xne preterential use

communal and fishmg resources.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Let us
hear from the Committee.

MR. MONSOD. Are there marine and fishing resour-
ces that are not communal?

MS. NIEVA. By “marginal” I think we are referring
to the small fishermen.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. DE CASTRO. What does the Committee mean
by small fishermen?

MS. NIEVA. Those who do not operate large fishing
fleets and so forth; those who are barely eking out their
living from fishing.

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just
volunteer this infonnation or data on small fishermen.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Let us
hear from Commissioner Sarmiento.

MR. SARMIENTO. According to IBON facts and
figures, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
estimates that there are 550,731 municipal fishermen.
They are distinguished by the fact that they operate in
coastal waters less than seven fathoms deep, using
motorized or nonmotorized bancas weighing less than
three gross tons. Because of the seasonality of fish,
municipal fishermen operate only on an average of
five hours a day, twenty days a month and six months
a year.

MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.

May I ask another question. Does tliat mean that
if one operates a banca weighing less than tliree tons,
he is a small fisherman?

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, according to this infor-
mation.

MR. DE CASTRO. In Laguna de Bay, fishermen,
including big fishpen operators, use bancas weighing
less than a ton, say, 16 horsepower. Are they small or
marginal fishermen?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What
does the Committee say?

MS. NIEVA. May we have the question again?

MR. DE CASTRO. From the definition of Honorable
Sarmiento, he said that the fisherman’s banca must
weigh more than three tons for him to be classified as
a big fishermen. But in Laguna de Bay, big fish pen
operators have a banca less than one ton using the
Briggs and Stratton 16 horsepower, a small engine.
Is he classified a small fisherman?

MR. MONSOD. By the Gentleman’s own definition,
he would not be a small fisherman because the classi-
fication is not only on the size of the banca.

MR. DE CASTRO. What is the other classification?

MR. MONSOD. Apparently, there are other con-
siderations such as the size of the holding and the

capitalization required. These are all the considered
criteria for determining if a fisherman is small or big.

MR. DE CASTRO. That is not the definition offered
by the Honorable Sarmiento. Does the Gentleman
mean to say that his definition is not the definition
of the small fisherman?

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO. May I give this additional in-
formation because the municipal fishennen were classi-
fied into two sectors and I think marginal fishermen
will fall under this second sector. The first sector
includes those who use motorized bancas and fishing
gears; the second includes those who use only wooden
bancas and who are equipped only with hook and line
and/or small nets. The Ministry of Natural Resources
estimates that there are 600,000 of the latter sector
called subsistence fishermen. I think these are the
marginal fishermen.

MR. DE CASTRO. So, if a fisherman uses a wooden
banca with a small-powered motor, principally perhaps
the Briggs and Stratton 16 horsepower, and uses hook
and line.

MR. SARMIENTO. Equipped with hook and line
and/or small nets.

MR. DE CASTRO. How small will that net be?

There are what we call small fishermen in Laguna
de Bay using nets of about 5 kilometers long known
as pukot. They are people who are poor, fishing in
Laguna de Bay using about 5 kilometers long of net
and using diesel bancas and yet are still considered
small fishermen. That is why I would like to have a
definition of a small fisherman because it is possible
that very small fishermen who depend all their life on
fishing may be excluded.

MS. NIEVA. That is why we have used the word
“marginal.”

MR. DE CASTRO. Then what is “marginal”?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer.

the presiding OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I think there are criteria
like the annual income of the family. The marginalized
fishermen, according to research, are usually below the
poverty-threshold income and are usually the ones who

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

join fishermen’s associations in order that they can get
loans and marketing and technical assistance.

A project called FIRM has organized all the marginal-
ized fishermen, of which there are about 3,843. They
are all below the poverty income which is one criterion
added to what we have said earlier. According to a
survey, 40 percent own their boats and only 20 percent
own any land. This is probably what would qualify
them to become marginalized fishermen.

MR. DE CASTRO. I will give an example.

In our place, there is a man who is a fisherman
since birth. In fact, he seldom uses clothes on his back
and his hair is already red because he is always fishing
in the sea. He was able to build a good house made of
hoUow blocks and cement because of his fishing and is
now considered one of the richest fishermen there.
He uses about three or four bancas powered by a
Briggs and Stratton 16 HP. He has about five or ten

baklads connected with fish pens and catches a good
amount of fish everyday. He earns a much better
earning than a regular employee, earning perhaps
PI, 500 a month. Is he a marginal fisherman under this
term? If he is not a marginal fisherman, then he will
not have the right, the preferential right, to fish in
Laguna de Bay.

I want to make this clear because he may say, “I am
a sniall fisherman” and yet he earns more than what a
regular employee or a lawyer in our place earns.

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON. On the basis of all these obser-
ya ions and doubts of Commissioner de Castro, may we,

herefore, hear his amendment, if he has formulated
one.

R. DE CASTRO. I have not formulated any amend-
men . would like first to understand what is meant
by marginal” and what is meant by “small.”

^ the Committee say

man whoLe^^^^?’ 1°’ Gentleman means a fis
man who lives on a hand-to-mouth existence?

MR. BENGZ()N. That is the meaning that the Com-
mittee contemplated when it used that word “mar-
ginal.” If the honorable Commissioner has some dif-
ficulties with respect to its interpretation, we would
be happy to consider his amendment.

MR. DE CASTRO. I will think about it.

May I ask another question of the proponent?

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer, just a clari-
fication.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. It would not be correct to say that
a fisherman, if he is not classified as “marginal,” would
not be allowed to use marine and fishing resources. He
will not only be allowed preferential use. That is what
would not be allowed unless he falls under “and local
communities.” But I do not think it would be accurate
to say that he would be banned from using such resour-
ces because he is not a marginal fisherman.

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bengzon is recognized.

MR. BENGZON. There is a pending issue at hand and
that is the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes
with respect to the definition of “communal.” I sugges
that we dispose of that issue first before we get en-
tangled in another issue as to the definition of
marginal fishermen and other questions, so that we w
have some kind of order.

MR. DE CASTRO. Then I reserve my other questions
to the proponent.

MR. RAMA. On the same issue as proposed by Com
missioner de los Reyes, I ask that Commissioner Villegas
be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Villegas is recognized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I make a
clarification? I think I was in error when I referred to
the four categories - agricultural, forest, mineral lands
and, if possible, national parks as categories of natural
resources. Those are the categories of lands of public
domain. What we have decided in Section 7 is to apply
the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship to all
the natural resources which include water, mineral,
coal, petroleum and other mineral oil, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests, flora and fauna and
other natural resources. So, I would like to clarify the
implication of Section 7 as applying to all the natural
resources and not only categories of public lands that I
referred to earlier. In this regard, I would like to dis-
agree with the suggestion that communal waters like
Laguna de Bay be so defined to prohibit fish pens.

1 think there is a provision in the Article on National
Economy that the State can limit the use of water rights

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

for irrigation, water supply, fisheries or industrial uses
other than development of water power to beneficial
use. It would prejudice eight million consumers of fish,
for example, in Metro Manila if we do not allow a high-
ly productive technology of fish farming that can be
given to specific entrepreneurs who can actually fish,
have fishponds of bangus or other types of freshwater
fish. As long as we have the prefential rights given to
these marginal fishennen, I do not tliink we should
completely prohibit the State from giving this type of
natural resources to individuals who can productively
make use of these waters for the benefit of eight million
consumers of fish in Metro Manila. That is why it is
very much parallel to the concept of agrarian reform
where we do not prohibit the private cultivation of
land by individuals. We have, for example, the retention
limit. So, I would object in saying categorically that
fish pens are prohibited in communal waters like Laguna
de Bay.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Villegas
answer one question?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de los Reyes is recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. In his experience and studies,
does the Gentleman know of any other country that
allows its lakes and rivers to be fenced in such a manner
that a few moneyed people are able to' exclude the
marginal fishermen from fishing in the communal
fishing grounds?

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, definitely. In fact, Nigeria
has imported Philippine technologists to teach her
how to do inland fish farming.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Aside from Nigeria.

MR. VILLEGAS. There are not so many countrie
Ulce the Philippines that have developed the indigenou
technology of fish farming Actually, for the infoi

mation of the body, we foe pacesetters in the worl(
in fish farming, and I thmk it would be very much ini
mical to the very mterest of the poor. Remember tha
50 percent of the diet of the poor depends on fish, an(
if we start preventing technology from being used in th
cultivation of water resources — I repeat, I am no
against the application of the principles of agrariai
reform and stewardship to the marine resources; I an
very much in favor but I think we cannot be exclu

sivists — and say that absolutely no use of communal
waters will be allowed for a technology that has been
evolved through the years in the Philippines . . . Just to
allay the fears about the small fishermen, we are also
recommending in the Article on the National Economy
that priority be given to cooperative fish farming in
rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. So, in the same way
that in agrarian reform we say direct use or collective

use of land, we can also include in foe provision for
small fishermen that they can get together and, in a
cooperative way, take advantage of foe technology of
fishfarming. But it does not mean that we cannot
completely prohibit a private individual from doing foe
same thing.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de los Reyes will first reply to the clarification
of Commissioner Villegas.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Ako ay walang tutol na mag-
karoon tayo ng teknolohiya upang lalong maging
masulong ang pangingisda. Subalit hindi ito dapat gawin
sa Laguna Lake at sa iba pang communal fishing grounds.
Dapat itong gawin sa mga inland fishing grounds.
Kaya ko ipinaglalaban ang sampung libong mangingisda
na naninirahan sa paUgid ng Laguna at Rizal ay madali
silang mahihikayat ng ating mga kapatid sa labas na
lumaban sa kasalukuyang sistema ng ating pamahalaan
sapagkat sinasabi ng ating mga kapatid sa labas na ang
ating batas ay para sa mayayaman lamang. Kapag sini-
mulan nating bigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga fish pen
operators, wika nga ni Ka Bias Ople, in foe real world
ay hindi naman magiging preferential lamang. Unti-
unting mawawala ang small fishermen at magiging ka-
tulad ng mga American-Indians na sinasabing hindi
pipinsalain subalit unti-unting napapapunta sa Indian
reservations. lyon po ang aking ipinaglalaban dito.
Sampung libong pamilya ang nahihikayat na ng ating
mga kapatid na sinasabi nating naliligaw ng landas.
Gusto nating magkaroon ng pagkakataong ipakita sa
kanila na sila ay hindi nalilimutan ng pamahalaan.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). We will
hear briefly from Commissioner de Castro on a point

of information.

MR. DE CASTRO. May I offer some information
in the light of the fact that we are talking about Laguna
Bay. Laguna Bay has an area of 90,000 hectares. The
Laguna Lake Development Authority has limited the
fish pens to about 2 1 ,000 hectares and only in a certain
area, the reason being that it really supplies a greater
amount of fish in Metro Manila and these fish pens
employ approximately 5 to 10,000 employees in their
fish pens. Also, with fish pens given the right to be built
in Laguna de Bay, all the places beginning from Ilocos
down to the southernmost of Mindanao have a good
way of living because of catching the fries — ’yung
kawag na tinatawag na nagiging bangus. Ngayong mga
panahong hindi pa dumarating ang bagyo, maraming
kawag sa Ilocos Norte, Zambales, Bataan hanggang

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Aurora, then down to Zambales,to the whole Bicol
region, Palawan, Mindoro and the whole Visayas up to
Zamboanga. Ang hanapbuhay ng mga tao sa tabi ng
dagat ay manghuli ng kawag at sila ay kumikita ng
malaki rito. At ang mga kawag na ito ay kailangan
sapagkat ginagamit ng ilang fish pens sa Laguna de Bay.

Will the proponent answer one question?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DE CASTRO. Is the Gentleman aware that there
are fish pens established by the so-caUed small fishermen
through the ADB-OPEC funding?

MR. DE LOS REYES. There is such a program and I
also know that these fishermen who claim to be fisher-
men are not really fishermen but dummies of moneyed
people.

MR. DE CASTRO. So, the Gentleman wants to say
manipulated this money for ADB-
, which money was taken from the Organization
® Exporting Countries through a loan and

t en given to the LLDA for the construction of fish
pens of supposedly small fishermen who have estab-
lished themselves into cooperatives. Is the Gentleman
now tellmg me that the ADB-OPEC funds have been
misused by the LLDA?

is REYES. I am not saying that the LLDA

IS dehberately misusing the OPEC funds. What I am

ymg IS t at even the LLDA people are being misled
class who act as dummies of the moneyed

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). With
tins mformation given to us and the statistical data
ma e available, what is the position of the Committee?

Pre“Lg'ofn«?^*' Mr.

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, there has been

no proposal for amendment.

u perhaps Commissioner de los Reyes, and (
ommissicmers Natividad and Davide, can summ<

rnmmn^ 1 regarding the proper definitioi

communal manne and aquatic resources.

MR. VILLEGAS. May I have
one final reaction.

one last word please;

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
missioner Villegas may proceed

(Mr. Regalado). Com-

• ^ thmk we are already treading

m legislation because we are talking about Laguna de
Bay. I think I would completely agree with Commis-
sioner de los Reyes regarding the general principle he

mentioned that there are other inland waters that can
be used for fish pens. I think he did admit already that
in principle he is not against having other inland waters.

The only bone of contention right now is whether or
not Laguna de Bay is going to be included among these
bodies of water.

MR. MONSOD. May I just interrupt. The reason I
wanted Commissioner de los Reyes to speak is that
earlier we had asked him if his amendment auto-
matically means that the entire Laguna de Bay, as an
example, is considered a communal marine and fishing
resource. We would want to seek a clarification of his
answer because his initial answer was that the entire
Laguna de Bay can be considered communal. That is
the reason we wanted a clarification. Perhaps, that
could also help the Gentleman’s concern.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What
does Commissioner de los Reyes say?

MR. DE LOS REYES. After conferring with Com-
missioners Natividad and Davide and explaining to me
the situations obtaining in their respective provinces,
I am beginning to believe that we should have senators
so that they will have parochial views. I think I might
be having parochial views with regard to Laguna de
Bay.

But, according to Commissioner Natividad, the
shallow portions should be considered commun
because that is where the marginal fishermen cou
fish. But the deep portions of bays, rivers or lakes are
where marginal fishermen could not fish. Therefore,
nonmarginal fishermen, those who have big bancas,
can be allowed to fish in deep portions, giving pr^
ferential right, however, to marginal fishermen to ns
in the shallow portions.

Therefore, hearing the different views submitted to
this representation the suggestion is to insert the w.or
THE before “communal” to read: “to the preferential
use of THE communal marine and fishing resources to
convey the idea that it refers only to that portion whicrn
is declared communal. Considering that legislation is
the art of the possible, I am willing to accept that
suggestion.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officerj may I ^sk
one question of the proponent?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de Castro is recognized.

MR- DE CASTRO. When the Gentleman says “deep”
and he refers to Laguna de Bay, may I know how many
feet is the deepest portion of Laguna de Bay?

I know that Laguna de Bay is deepest during the
rainy season, especially from August to September,
reaching about 1 5 feet; then during smmmer, it is only

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7,1986

12 feet. What is now the communal portion since it
is sometimes deep and sometimes shallow? I know
this because I live near Laguna de Bay and I may even
be considered a marginal fishennan.

MR. DE LOS REYES. The problem in Laguna, as the
Gentleman very well knows, is that fish pens are be-
ing constructed in those portions where traditionally
the small fishermen fish. Because of their big capital, the
big fishermen could move their fish pens somewhere in
the middle of the lake.

Also, the problem in Laguna de Bay is that there is
progressive and uncontrollable siltation. The Gentleman
knows what siltation is. Laguna de Bay is becoming a
dead lake; it is getting shallower and shallower. And the
reason is the fish pens, the bamboos stuck in Laguna de
Bay prevent the free fiow and circulation ot water and
that is the cause of siltation.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, that was the
statement made by our governor. He said that bamboos
cause siltation and nets prevent water circulation. It is
mere common sense, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Let us
hear from the Committee whether they are satisfied by
the clarification given by Commissioner de los Reyes.

de CASTRO. The holes of nets are big and the
water can flow througli.

MR. BENGZON. We are already zeroing in on a
specific portion of the Philippines . . .

MR. DE CASTRO. I only made these comments
because I happen to know Laguna Lake which we are
talking about, and I am giving this information for the
benefit of the Committee.

MR BENGZON. May we hear from Commissioner
Monsod m representation of the Committee.

MR. MONSOD. The explanation of Commissioner de
los eyes of his proposed amendment now clarifies the

poin we raised before, and we are accepting his amend-
ment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de los Reyes will please read his proposed
amendment.

MR. DE LOS REYES. “The State shall protect the
rights of marginal fishermen and local communities to
the preferential USE OF THE communal marine
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore ...” The
coauthors are Commissioner Natividad, the Presiding
Officer and Commissioner Davide.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
amendment has been accepted by tlie Committee. Is
there any objection?

MR. RODRIGO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO. Now that the Committee has ac-
cepted that amendment, I would like to propound a few
questions to the Committee for clarification.

The provision now states tliat the State shall protect
the rights of marginal fishennen and local communities
to the preferential use of the communal marine and
fishing resources, both inland and offshore.

So, there are two conditions in order to get a prefer-
ence: first, he must be a marginal fisherman; second, he
must live in the local community. Must these two con-
ditions both be present? In other words, does one have
to be bodi a marginal fisherman and live in the com-
munity?

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, those are not
conjunctive. In other words, one may be a marginal
fisherman and be entitled to preferential use or it may
be the entire local community.

MR. RODRIGO. So, a marginal fisherman, let us say,
from Bataan, can fish in Bulacan waters, in the com-
munal fishing ground in Bulacan.

MR MONSOD. We are referring to the fishermen in
the area. And what the Committee had in mind was

ally either individually or the entire community be-
cause there are local communities that have formed
fishing cooperatives.

MR RODRIGO. I am not speaking of cooperatives
but of marginal fishermen. May any marginal fisherman
from any part of the Philippines have preferential right
to fish in the communal fishing ground by the shores of
Bulacan Province, or only the'marginal fishermen in that
aria of Bulacan Province?

MR. MONSOD. I think we answered the question
yesterday during the interpellations of Commissioner
Ople, that it is not the primary intention of the Com-
mittee to exclude. In other words, somebody from
another place who is a marginal fisherman may avail of
the preferential use of these marginal areas. So, because
it is not exclusive to the people in the area marginal
fishermen may avail of them. This was asked yesterday
by Commissioner Ople.

MR. RODRIGO. So, provided one is a marginal
fisherman, he is given preferential right to fish in any
communal fishing ground anywhere in the Philippines;
is that right?

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. RODRIGO. If one lives in the vicinity, even if he
is a rich fisherman, he can fish in the communal fishing
ground of the vicinity.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, the preferential use is for certain
people.

MR. RODRIGO. Let us discuss the implementation
of this because I would not want to raise the hopes of
our people, and afterwards fail in the implementation.
How will this be implemented? Will there be licensing or
giving of permits so that government officials will know
that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if policemen
say that a person is not a marginal fisheiman. he can
show his permit, to prove that indeed he is one.

MR. RODRIGO. The Gentleman said this is either-or.
As to a marginal fisherman, he does not have to live in
the local community to get preferential treatment.

How about those who live in the local communities?
Do they get preferential treatment only if they are
marginal fishermen?

MR. BENGZON. Yes.

MR. RODRIGO. Or is it enough that they live in the
local community?

MR. BENGZON. No. If an individual lives in a local
community but he is not a marginal fisherman, he does
not have preferential treatment.

^ MR. RODRIGO. What is then the use of placing
local community" here? We might as well delete the

MR. BENGZON. Certainly, there will be some mode
of licensing insofar as this is concerned and this parti-
cular question could be tackled when we discuss the
Article on Local Governments — whether we will leave
to the local governments or to Congress on how these
things will be implemented. But certainly, I think our
congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft of
ideas on how to implement this mandate.

MR. MONSOD. There are two aspects to this: the
aspect of exclusion and the aspect of inclusion. In the
case of exclusion, it is easier. In other words, in areas
considered communal, the putting up of fish pens
or allowing big fishing enterprises to fish in that area
may be prohibited. That is the exclusion aspect. In the
case of inclusion, on who are considered marginal fisher-
men or what are marginal local communitiesj I believe
the answer of Commissioner Bengzon would apply-
There might be a need for identifying them by a system
of licensing.

nf ^'■®siding Officer, is it the intent

e ommittee to refer to groups or to persons who
tish as a group in the local community?

MR RODRIGO. But suppose marginal fishermen
r(^ alawan, fishing as a group, come to Manila Bay to
1 m the communal fishing ground by the seashore of
u acan. They are marginal fishermen working as a
group; are they entitled to preference?

MR. BENGZON. We believe that that is really theore-
ic and may remain theoretical because marginal
IS ermen, for example, in Palawan, whether they go as
m ivi uals or in groups, cannot afford to go to Manila,

MR. RODRIGO. So, once one is licensed as a mar-
ginal fisheiman, he can go anywhere in the Philippines
and fish in any fishing grounds.

MR. BENGZON. Subject to whatever rules and regu-
lations and local laws that may be passed, may be
existing or will be passed.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I think the issue has been sufficiently
debated. I move that we take a vote.

MR. RODRIGO. Palawan
about from Cavite?

is indeed too far. How

MK. BtNGZON. Even then. The real intei

inXiduaUy w af a ^ou^^ If°5hey^'’"^'"'‘”^*-®^’i
men, then they have preferential trealTnt'ove
who are not marginal, whether they Uve in th
munity or not.

MR. RODRIGO. As long as they are marginal.
MR. BENGZON. Yes.

MR. VILLEGAS. Mr. Presiding Officer, just a possible
amendment to avoid confusion on the phrase “local
communities." I think it is quite clear that what the
Gentleman meant was directly or collectively, as he said
in the provision on agrarian reform.

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Villegas is offering an amendment to the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, that is right.

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). The
Gentleman may proceed.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. VILLEGAS. After the phrase “rights of,” add
MARGINAL FISHERMEN DIRECTLY OR COLLEC-
TIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL so that the phrase
“local communities” is not misunderstood. So, the pro-
vision will read; “The State shall protect the rights of
MARGINAL FISHERMEN DIRECTLY OR COLLEC-
TIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL use of THE COM-
MUNAL marine and fishing resources . . .”

MR. MONSOD. What about “INDIVIDUALLY OR
COLLECTIVELY”?

MR. VILLEGAS. “INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLEC-
TIVELY.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Does
Commissioner de los Reyes accept the proposed amend-
ment to his amendment?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Villegas
repeat his amendment?

MR. VILLEGAS. “Tlie State shall protect the rights
of MARGINAL FISHERMEN INDIVIDUALLY OR
COLLECTIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL use . . .”
and all the rest will be like the Gentleman’s proposal.

MR. DE LOS REYES. What happened to “local com-
munities”?

MR. VILLEGAS. “COLLECTIVELY” refers to
“local communities.”

MR. DE LOS REYES. We accept the amendment.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What
does the Committee say?

MR. BENGZON. We accept, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there
any objection to the proposed amendment, as amended
by Commissioner de los Reyes?

MR. RODRIGO. Just one question. Are the words
“local communities” deleted?

MR. BENGZON. Yes, the phrase “local communi-
ties” was deleted and replaced by the word “COLLEC-
TIVELY.”

MR. BROCKA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recog-
nized?

MR. RODRIGO. May I just pursue this point, just
one sentence.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Brocka is recognized.

MR. BROCKA. I am a member of the Committee and
when we were discussing this — “local communities”
specifically — this was in reference to that particular
example given, the Laguna de Bay fishermen. So, the
phrase “marginal fishermen INDIVIDUALLY AND
COLLECTIVELY” does not quite catch the reference
to a particular community in that particular area. When
we were discussing this particular phrase “local commu-
nities,” it was in direct reference to a particular fishing
community like Laguna de Bay. The amendment does
not quite catch the meaning of the discussions on that.

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, when we used
“local communities” earlier, it was appropriate because
we were also using “communal use.” Then we enlarged
the meaning so that we took out “beneficial or com-
munal” and just left “use.” We can change the wording
to “COLLECTIVE” because it would have the same
meaning in that context.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. Will the meaning be preserved if
we say “The State shall protect the rights of marginal
fishermen ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE local com-
munities to the PREFERENTIAL use of the COM-
MUNAL marine and fishing resources . . .”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What
does the Committee say?

MR. BENGZON. The amendment does not capture
our real intent.

BISHOP BACANI. The amendment includes marginal
fishermen and the preference for them in the local com-
munities because obviously in the Committee, we did
not intend to give preference even to the nonmarginal
fishermen in the local community. The real stress was
for the marginal fishermen in the local communities and
I think the amendment will actually express what you
are trying to do in the community.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So what
is the position of the Committee?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Otficer, may we have a
minute to consult with the rest of the Committee on
this?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 6:27 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:35 p.m., the session was resumed.

.52

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
session is resumed.

Will the Committee now state its phraseology of this
proposed sentence?

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask
that Commissioner Bacani be recognized?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer, after confer-
ring with the members of the Committee, it seems we
are all agreed now. The provision will read: “The State
shall protect the rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN
ESPECIALLY OF local communities to the PRE-
FERENTIAL USE OF THE communal marine and
fishing resources.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there
any objection to the proposed amendment as read by
Commissioner Bacani?

MR. PADILLA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. BENGZON. Yes, “the preferential use of com-
munal marine and fishing resources.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Will
Commissioner Bacani please read again his proposed
amendment?

BISHOP BACANI. I will read it again although that
was not the particular point of the amendment I intro-
duced.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). And
that continues to “both inland and offshore, PARTI-
CULARLY IN MUNICIPAL FISHING GROUNDS.”

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, the Committee accepts the amend-
ment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there
any objection to this proposed amendment?

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO. Before we vote on this, may I be
a lowed to reserve my definition of “marginal fisher-
ecause I intend to make the research tonight
and see what “marginal” is. As of now, 1 am not cleared
o what is marginal” and what are “small fishermen.”
May I reserve the right to define these terms?

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr
inclusion in the Journal tomorrow.

Regalado).

Jo^ml inclusion in

“mareinal” the change of the Wi

marginal based on the definition because as of n
the definition is hand-to-mouth. ^ °

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is this
within the entire proposed present text?

BISHOP BACANI. “The State shall protect the rights
of marginal fishermen ESPECIALLY OF local com-
munities to the PREFERENTIAL use of THE COM-
MUNAL marine and fishing resources both inland and
offshore PARTICULARLY IN MUNICIPAL FISHING
GROUNDS.”

MR. PADILLA. Will the proponent consider the right
of marginal fisherman in his local community? 1 make it
singular because when you say in their respective or
local communities, while it is singular, the preferentia
right applies to all marginal fishermen.

BISHOP BACANI. There are two senses that we
wanted to preserve and that is why that formulation was
presented by myself first, that we should also accord
preferential treatment to fishermen from other com-
munities provided they are marginalized. Second, we
should especially accord the right of preferential use to
fishermen who belong to the local community. We do
not intend to give the right of preferential use to rich
fishermen in the local communities. That is the reason
for the special formulation.

MR. BENGZON. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask
for a vote?

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr Regalado) W
does the Committee say? Kegaiado). w

MR. BENGZON. We request that we first vote on the
amendment of Commissioner Bacani and then we will
decide on the proposal of Commissioner de Castro.

the presiding OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). As
many as are in favor of the proposed first sentence
of this section, as amended, please raise their hand.
( Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Tlie results show 30 votes in favor and none against; MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer,
the amendment is approved.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer. missioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO. May I now reserve my right to
define marginal fishennen? May I be given at least to-
night to do my research on what “marginal” means?

Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Would Commissioner Davide
accept an amendment to his amendment? I was wonder-
ing if he can delete the first “support” so that it will
just read: “THE STATE shall ALSO provide appropriate
technology . . . AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.”

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, we only want a
symmetry of this proposal with the earlier wordings on
Section 6, and symmetry in the benefits and advantages
to be given to both the farmers, farm workers, coopera-
tives and so on on the one hand, and to the marginal
fishermen on the other. I would like to consider Com-
missioner Rosario Braid as a coauthor in view of the
use of the words AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES,
which was her amendment to Section 6.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

My amendments to Section 8 are very simple. I hope
the Committee will accept the same. This would be on
lines 5, 6, and 7. On line 5 between the words “provide”
and “appropriate,” insert SUPPORT THROUGH; be-
tween “appropriate” and “financial,” insert the follow-
ing: TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND ADEQUATE.
Then delete “tech” at the end of the line. On line 6,
delete “nical” and the words “and research” and before
“assistance,” insert PRODUCTION AND MARKETING.
After “assistance,” insert the words AND OTHER SUP-
PORT SERVICES. So, the two lines will read: “grounds
and shall provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate
technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE
and OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.”

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Just a
moiTieiit, Commissioner Davide. After “grounds ” there
is a period.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is Com-
missioner Rosario Braid satisfied with the Gentleman’s
withdrawing her amendment to the amendment?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I am just concerned about
the use of the words and I would be willing to have the
anterior amendment in Section 6 and just say “shall
provide appropriate technology.” It is really just a
matter of style and maybe the Committee on Style can
handle it.

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, the intention
here is just to provide support. But if we remove the
word “support,” it would be mandatory on the part of
the State and the State may not be able to afford this.
So, I think providing support is the better compromise.

the presiding officer (Mr. Regalado). Is Com-
missioner Rosario Braid satisfied with that explanation?

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I pro-
pose an amendment to the amendment?

MR. DAVIDE. Was it placed already?

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So the
first sentence ends after the word “grounds.” What the
Gentleman is now proposing will be the second sentence.

MR. DAVIDE. So, the second sentence will read:
“THE STATE shall ALSO provide SUPPORT THROUGH
appropriate technology, research and ADEQUATE
FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING AS-
SISTANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, TO
SAID FISHERMEN for the . . .”

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I yield to Commissioner

Sarmiento.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Is Commissioner Davide willing
to delete the word “SUPPORT” in the phrase “AND
OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES” because we would be
having two supports.’ So, the amendment will read:
“provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate techno-
logy, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRO-
DUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND
OTHER SERVICES.”

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. DA VIDE. We are agreeable with the interpreta-
tion that these other services would simply mean other
support services. But just to avoid repeating the word
“support,” we are agreeable.

MR. SUAREZ. Will the Honorable Davide agree to
change the beginning of the sentence from “THE
STATE” to IT because there is already a repetition?

MR. DAVIDE. Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So, how
will the proposed second sentence now read?

MR. DAVIDE. It will now read as follows: “IT shall
also provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate tech-
nology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRO-
DUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE* AND
OTHER SERVICES, TO SAID FISHERMEN for
the . . .”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). May we
hear from the Committee?

MR. BENGZON. We accept the amendment.

Officer Committee accepts, Mr. Presidir

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there
My objection to the proposed amendment constituting
the second sentence of this section? (Silence) The Chair
nears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. DAVIDE. I wonder if Commissioner Ople would
have no amendment.

MR. RAMA. He has an amendment on the same
section.

additional sentence which, of course,
wou require dropping the phfase about foreign intru-
sion.

MS. NIEVA. The phrase was dropped.

MR. OPLE. Was it already dropped?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, this was a mistake yesterday.

MR. OPLE. So, I do not think I would stand in the
way of any further amendment by Commissioner
Davide.

MR. DAVIDE. The words “and from intrusion of
foreign investments . . .”

MS. NIEVA. The phrase was dropped by the Com-
mittee. It was only typed in by mistake of the staff.
There is a corrected page but we are just using this one.

MR. DAVIDE. So, this was dropped already because
my proposal will be to delete tliis phrase.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So,
where will the sentence end?

MR. DAVIDE. However, I would like to insert the
word PROTECTION and a comma (,) before “develop-
ment” on line 7 because this wilt give way to another
proposal regarding foreign intrusion but worded dif-
ferently. I understand that Commissioner Ople will have
an amendment to that effect. So, in anticipation of his
amendment which would relate tb protection, we
would now insert the word PROTECTION and a
comma (,) before “development” to read: “PROTEC-
TION, development and conservation of such resources.

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Then
we delete “and from intrusion of foreign investments.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, that has already been deleted. So,
it is just the insertion of the word PROTECTION fol-
lowed by a comma (,) before “development” on line 7,
to give way to the Ople proposal which I also am willing
to support.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Is there
any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none, tie
amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Ople be recog-
nized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

The proposed amendment which is a new sentence
under Section 8 shall read as follows: THE STATE
SHALL ESTABLISH A POLICY TO PROTECT FROM
FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITO-
RIAL WATERS WITH THEIR MARINE WEALTH
WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE
EXPLOITATION BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ESPECIAL-
LY SMALL FISHERMEN. This amendment is proposed
jointly by Commissioners Natividad, Rodrigo, de los
Reyes, de Castro, Davide and myself. I think I will spare
the Commission and the Committee the reiteration of
the basis for this amendment which I made yesterday
during the general debate. We all know that the intru-
sion of foreign fishing vessels in our fishing waters,
among the richest in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, has
reached scandalous proportions. In a place just off Iba,

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

Zambales — and this incident I had the occasion to
report to this body yesterday — to add insult to injury,
Japanese fishing vessels even have the temerity to ram
the small boats of small Filipino fishermen. This was
brought to my attention and a report was sent by me to
competent authorities concerning this. Therefore, I
think tliis will round off the section immediately pre-
ceding m terms of declaring a policy to protect our
marine wealth in our own territorial waters from the
intrusion of foreign fishing vessels and from foreign
capital. There is an element m the last part where a
policy of preserving tlie exploitation of our marine
wealtli to Filipino citizens especially small fishermen is
set forth. So, I ask for the Committee’s kind considera-
tion of this proposed amendment.

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. May I ask just one question of the pro-
ponent of the amendment?

MR. OPLE. Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. FOZ. By national territorial waters, are we refer-
ring to the territorial sea of the Philippines?

MR. OPLE. Yes, especially the coastal waters which
are exploited but which should be exploited by our own
fishermen alone, by our own citizens alone.

MR. FOZ. Are we also referring to the so-called
archipelagic waters?

MR. OPLE. I am not sure but I understand the speci-
fic meaning of archipelagic waters. But if they belong to
our territorial waters, then they are comprised by these.

MR. FOZ. What about th^e internal waters as men-
tioned and more or less defined in our Article on the
National Terntory?

undoubtedly, Mr.

MR: FOZ. What about the waters in the sok:
exc lustve economic zone over which, under the
vention of the Law of the Sea, the PhUippines
jurisdiction?

MR. OPLE. The construction of the 200-mile econo-
uiic zone by most authorities pertains to the wealth in
the seabed. I think in the same degree that Filipino
fishermen are allowed to fish in the 200-economic mile
zone of our neighboring countries, then this same
privilege should not be denied to the fishermen of other
countries.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Concepcion is recognized.

MR. CONCEPCION. The 200-mile exclusive econo-
mic zone is now part of the internal waters of the
Philippines. Our base line is drawn from the farthest
points into the sea. The line drawn extends from
Batanes to Palawan, down to the southernmost part of
Mindanao, following the farthest point of our territory
into the sea. The economic zone starts from the base
line at present. There is no question, therefore, that
from the old meaning of these terms, the area in ques-
tion is included within our internal waters, which is
subject to our sovereignty.

MR. OPLE. I want to thank Commissioner Concep-
cion for offering this information, although this may
differ somewhat from the meaning attributed by others
to the 200-economic mile zone. I do not think the 200-
mile economic zone has a one-to-one correspondence
with our internal waters. As a matter of fact, these
economic zones have to be negotiated with neighboring
countries when there is an overlap of the 200-mile eco-
nomic zones. An example is Taiwan which is separated
from the northern cape of Luzon by just about 120
miles, and where do we put the economic zone of the
Philippines and of Taiwan in that respect?

MR. CONCEPCION. That was before the adoption of
the archipelagic doctrine but not since then.

MR. OPLE. To the extent that Commissioner Con-
cepcion is right, so long as an economic zone is under-
stood to comprise part of our internal waters, then there
is a call under this paragraph for the Philippines to
protect these waters and their marine wealth from
foreign intrusion, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Of-
ficer.

MR. BENNAGEN. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bennagen is recognized.

MR- BENNAGEN. May we ask the proponent for the
sake of the record as to what is encompassed by foreign
intrusion?

MR- OPLE. Foreign intrusion in this respect refers
above all to fishing vessels which directly encroach on
marine wealth that should be enjoyed exclusively by
our fishermen. Secondly, it refers to foreign capital
because as we can see in the last clause, the marine
wealth in this territorial water shall be reserved to ex-
clusive exploitation by Filipino citizens and, therefore,
foreign capital is considered a form of intrusion once
this is adopted.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Suarez is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ. Would the Gentleman have any objec-
tion to going for the jugular by removing the phrase
“ALSO ESTABLISH A POLICY TO” such that the
proposed amendment would read: “THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION...”?

MR. OPLE. Yes, I welcome the amendment which
improves the paragraph, as a matter of fact, Mr. Presid-
ing Officer.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

scope of this article which is meant to be an article on
social justice, in support of social justice for fishermen
to something like a national policy on national security
and foreign relations. So, I want to be more modest —
keep the idea of this protection within bounds and to an
extent that the State, without arousing false hopes and
expectations, can actually endeavor to carry out. And I
feel safer when for purposes of detennining the intent
of this Commission, we really want to confine ourselves
to protecting the territorial waters of the Philippines.
Maybe someday when we have a real navy and a coast
guard capable of policing the entire length and breadth
of the country which is twice the coastline of the
United States, then the construction of this paragraph
can rise to a new level; it also means that tlie State has
a duty to protect our marine resources and the rights of
our small fishermen from foreign intrusion in the
territorial sea.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
missioner Davide is recognized.

(Mr. Regalado). Com-

MR. DAVIDE. Just for the record, I would like to
read the Article on National Territory that the Commis-
sion had approved.

• ^ intention of Commissioner Ople will onl

include the territorial waters; it would not expand t

h.vp a w- Philippines would sti

have junsdiction. The article reads:

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipe-
ago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and
a 0 er territories over which the Philippines has sover-
ei^ty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial,
an aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the seabed,
t e subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas
• waters around, between and connecting the

IS an s of the archipelago, irrespective of their breadth and

pensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philip-
pmes.

. inquire from Commissioner Ople il

y em onal waters” he would include the territorial
s a over which the Philippines has jurisdiction?

MR. OPLE. I would like
Officer.

to say, yes, Mr. Presiding

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD. May we just ask a clarificatory
question? We are now including areas that could be the
subject of exploitation by commercial fishing. Would
the Gentleman include in the definition of Filipino
citizens corporations of which 60 percent is owned by
Filipino citizens?

MR. OPLE. Yes, in accordance with the provision of
the Article on the National Economy which very soon
will reach the plenary session.

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Davide may proceed.

MR. DAVIDE. Just an additional question for Com-
missioner Ople. By territorial waters, would the Gentle-
man actually mean the internal waters of the Philippines
as defined under the Article on National Territory
which will not include the territorial sea?

sh^lld rwd^*.^^‘ provision

sentence? ^ "linute. May I please continue that

MR. OPLE. Yes, without prejudice to any other
section of the Constitution, raising its sights higher with
respect to the protection of our territorial seas for
purposes of national security.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

“y but whei

we speak of the temtonal sea, this can extend I under
Stand, to about 300 miles from the nearest base line
under the archipelagic theory. This may modify th(

MR. DAVIDE. In other words. Congress may have,
subsequently or later, the authority to include in terri-
torial waters the territorial sea itself?

MR. OPLE. Yes, I want to confirm that, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). So, may
we have the proposed amendment with the deletion and
the transposition duly taken into account.

MR. OPLE. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. The amend-
ment reads: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FROM
FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITO-
RIAL WATERS WITH THEIR MARINE WEALTH
WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE EX-
PLOITATION BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ESPECIALLY
SMALL FISHERMEN.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). What
does the Committee say?

MR. BENGZON. We just want to ask some clarifica-
tion, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Bengzon is recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA. As we said earlier, we are referring
particularly to the interest or to the protection of small
fishermen. But with the statement “to the exclusive ex-
ploitation by Filipino citizens,” is tlie Gentleman also
not disregarding the interest of big fishermen in this
particular provision?

MR. OPLE. Yes, the emphasis is especially small
fishermen. The position in which 1 see the bigger Fili-
pino fishermen is relative to Japanese, Taiwanese and
Korean intruders into our shores; they are the victims
of social injustice.

MS. NIEVA. Will the Gentleman give us one minute?
We are trying to formulate or reformulate this in such a
way that the social justice aspect will not be lost, as the
Commissioner said.

MR. BENGZON. The intent of this paragraph,
believe, is to protect the small fisherman.

MR. OPLE. I am absolutely at the disposal of the
Committee.

MR. OPLE. Yes, and the rights of the Filipino people,
to whom the fishermen belong as a major group, to the
exclusive use of their own marine resources that God
has given them.

MR. BENGZON. Then this is not really a paragraph
that pertains to this particular Article. This should be
a paragraph that pertains to the Article on the National
Economy because it is wider in its scope.

MR. OPLE. It does pertain, Mr. Presiding Officer, to
social justice. It pertains to the rights of small fisher-
men, but within the context of a policy to reserve the
marine wealth of our own territorial waters, especially
of our internal waters, to exclusive exploitation by
Filipino citizens; meaning, in the majority of cases,
Filipino fishermen.

MR. BENGZON. Would the Gentleman have any
objections if we defer this until we discuss the Article
on the National Economy? Perhaps we could include
this concept on the Article on the National Economy?

MR. OPLE I think this is appropriately located as

is. I do not thmk a nationalistic doHp., , ^

„+ihip with th<» policy would be mcor

patible with the nghts of small fishermen esnecial

when we are thmking of conserving thesreasilvTeplet
tesources for the use and en^oyZnt 7

men and of our own people. So, I do not believe it mu
wait for another committee, dealing with nation
patnmony, to send its report to this Committee befoi
we act on this provision which has been under debai
since yesterday.

MS. QUESADA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask
some clarificatory questions of Commissioner Ople?

MS. NIEVA. I think we are more concerned here
with the protection of the rights of the small fishermen
from foreign intrusion. We believe that the parts about
“exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens” belong
rightly to the Article on the National Economy. How-
ever, for social justice, we agree that the rights of the
small fishermen should be protected from foreign intru-
sion. So, we are trying to reformulate.

MR. MONSOD. In effect what we are saying is that
the marginal fishermen have certain traditional areas
where they fish. These areas are not necessarily the
areas that large-scale corporations can fish in. And, if we
get the Commissioner’s original intent, areas v/hich are
the traditional fishing grounds of marginal fishermen
should be protected.

With respect to the general principle of exclusive use
of marine and fishing resources in territorial waters, that
might be more appropriate in the Article on the National
Economy. So, if we can insert a phrase regarding mar-
ginal fishermen in the same section, we may serve the
Commissioner’s purpose and then transpose the bigger
paragraph in the Article on the National Economy
section.

MR. OPLE. That is precisely my point, Mr. Presiding
Officer, that there is a full-bodied context to the rights
of the small fishermen in this paragraph. Although we
try to distinguish here between the small fishermen and
the bigger fishermen, we might lose sight of a com-
munity of interest between them in the sense that they
have to share the same marine resources that should be
reserved to the exclusive enjoyment of Filipino citizens,
especially fishermen, and more especially, the small
fishermen. What I am saying is that if we had inserted in

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

the previous section the objectives of protection and
conservation and development of our marine resources,

I see no reason why we cannot transpose the same prin-
ciple in a more nationalistic context where there is a
unity of interest between the small fishermen and the
big fishermen and the Filipino people as a whole.

May I call your attention to the fact that the deep-sea ,
fishing fleets of the Philippines are just about gone.
They cannot compete with Taiwanese, Korean and
Japanese fishing operators who routinely, habitually,
and with total impunity intrude into our waters, deplet-
ing the marine resources that should be reserved to the
exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the Filipino
people. So, why do we have to truncate this paragraph,
separate the class context from the national context,
just because we have to satisfy some needs or standards
of division between the Committee on the National Eco-
nomy and the Committee on Social Justice? I believe
that a great part of the contextual meaning intended for
this paragraph is lost.

REV. RIGOS. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
Committee is still determining the proper situs for this
^endment. Let us hear from Commissioner Rigos
because his amendment may have a bearing on this.

REV. RIGOS. Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not detect
any strong objection of the Committee to this proposed
amendment. Perhaps, we can act on this proposed
amendment with the understanding that should the
tyle Committee find that it belongs more properly to
another article, that said Committee be given the
privilege to transfer it.

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioncr Sarmicnto is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO. I personally believe that this
section should not express the unified interest of small
and big fishermen. I think this section should only per-
tain to small fishermen. May I be allowed to explain
briefly?

Our small fishermen are complaining against big
fishermen We have Filipino big fishermen who have
modern fishmg technology with sonars, radars and
n track down fish at the expense of

small fishermen^ As a matter of fact, fishermen from
San Sebastmn, Samar expressed that there are big fish-
ing capitalists who are subdividing sea areas among
themselves and are collecting tributes from fishermen
who trespass. In Lilanga Lake, Zambales - again, this
pertains to Filipino big fishermen - there are rich busi-
nessmen who have been appropriating for themselves
large portions of Lilanga Lake to develop into fish-
ponds. The lake is 20 hectares wide in San Roque,

Lilanga, Zambales. So, I personally believe that this
section should not express the' unified interests of two
sectors — small and big fishermen. I think this should
express the interest of small, marginal fishermen.

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am for conserving
time and for conserving the efforts that have already
been exerted especially on this subject by the Committee
which has been working hard the whole day. If it needs
this new line of thought that there should be no bond
of unity between one upper crust and one lower crust of
the same fishermen sector in Filipino society tor pur-
poses of the Article on Social Justice, I would be amena-
ble right now to saying that this protection from foreign
intrusion shall pertain mainly to the rights of the small
fishermen so that the provision will read: “The State
shall protect FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION THE
NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THEIR
MARINE WEALTH WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED
PRINCIPALLY TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF
SMALL FISHERMEN.”

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

MR. OPLE. If incidentally, this benefits the richer
fishermen, then that is completely incidental.

MR. DAVIDE. Would the proponent agree to some
amendments without prejudice to introducing in the
proper Article on the National Economy and Patrimony
the bigger concept? If the intention is just to harmonize
this totally for social justice, the proposed amendment
would read as follows: after “resources,” insert a
comma (,) and the following: INCLUDING PROTEC-
TION AGAINST INTRUSION BY FOREIGN IN-
TERESTS IN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THERE-
OF.

So, that would leave the matter completely to the
marginal fishermen. But it would also mean protection
not only of the fishermen but also of the marine and
fishing resources against intrusion by foreign interests in
the use and enjoyment thereof.

I used the word “interest” so it will qualify all kinds
of foreign intrusion, whether it would be by a capitalist
or whether it would be by a dummy. I wonder if that
would be acceptable to the Committee. But we leave
the matter of general principle on reserving these fishing
and marine resources to Filipino citizens only in the
Article on the National Economy and the Patrimony of
the nation.

MR. OPLE. Before I yield on this point, Mr. Presiding
Officer, and I am so concerned that the Commission
should now take a well-earned rest at the end of a very

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

tough and exhilarating day, may I know whether the
Chairman of tlie National Patrimony Committee who is
here will agree to a clause or a sentence when the
patrimony amendment reaches the floor that will em-
body this concept of the exclusive exploitation by
Filipino citizens of our own marine resources?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Villegas is recognized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact,
it fits very well into one of the articles.

MR. OPLE. On that basis then, I am receptive to the
Davide amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer, unless it clut-
ters up unduly this well-sculptured preceding sentence.

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD. We would like to sleep on this thing
but we would like to suggest that perhaps, we can draft
something that might express the concern of small
fishermen in the seashores that was referred to by Com-
missioner Sarmiento if we say: “THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL FISHING GROUNDS
OF MUNICIPAL FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRU-
SION OF FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS.”

MR. DAVIDE. That would not convey the fullness of
the idea. It is not just shipping vessels but foreign corpo-
rations, partnerships or associations or fishermen fishing
in these areas. It is not intrusion by the use of vessels
passing through or over it.

MR. MONSOD. The intrusion of foreign interests.

MR. DAVIDE. That is it. So, it is just to continue the
original wording. After “resources,” add a comma (,)
and the following: INCLUDING PROTECTION

against INTRUSION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS IN
THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF, meaning, the
marine and fishing resources.

MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Davide consider an
alternative amendment which I would like to propose
on behalf of Commissioner Romulo and myself, as well
as Commissioner Davide, if he is willing to associate
with a somewhat amended version of his version?

MR. DAVIDE. Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. OPLE. The amendment will read: “THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT THE SMALL FISHERMEN IN THE

NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS. THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT THE SMALL FISHERMEN FROM
FOREIGN INTRUSION.”

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer, the idea of my
proposal is to widen the umbrella of the protection. It is
not only protection of the interest of tlie marginal
fishermen but also of the resources themselves.

MR. BENGZON. Then that is not social justice any
more.

MR. MONSOD. That would be national economy.

MR. BENGZON. That is already national territory'.

MR. DAVIDE. No, it is not, because these natural
resources are reserved for the marginal fishermen.

MR. BENGZON. Not only for marginal fishermen.

MR. DAVIDE. Not necessarily the marginal fisher-
men.

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I call the at-
tention of Commissioner Davide once again to this
formulation: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE
SMALL FISHERMEN IN THE NATIONAL TERRI-
TORIAL WATERS FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION.”
By construction, foreign intrusion refers to foreign
fishing vessels with their superior equipment, and also to
foreign capital or its agents.

MR DAVIDE. I would propose an amendment:
against FOREIGN INTERESTS.

MR. OPLE. The amendment is accepted, Mr. Presid-
ing Officer. In its latest permutation may I read the
amendment, as amended: “THE STATE SHALL PRO-
TECT THE SMALL FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRU-
SION OF FOREIGN INTERESTS.”

MR. DAVIDE. AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.

MR. OPLE. “AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.”
But that sounds slightly xenophobic. In a Constitution,
one has to look for a buffer between intrusion and
interests.

MR. LERUM. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask a ques-
tion.

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). Com-
missioner Monsod is>recognized.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. MONSOD. May we request an adjournment of
the session so that each of us can go back and draft a
proposal along the same lines.

MR. OPLE. Yes, I endorse the proposal, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado). The
consideration is deferred and the session is adjourned
until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

It was 7:23 p.m.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

R.C.C. NO. 51
Friday, August 8, 1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 9:45 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia
Munoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is ealled to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT. Eveybody will please rise to sing
the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain
standing for tiie Prayer to be led by the Honorable
Gregorio J. Tingson.

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.

PRAYER

MR. TINGSON. Our dear loving Heavenly Father, we
realize only too well that “unless the Lord builds the
house, they labor in vain who build it."

We are mandated to build a charter for our country
that will stand the test of time and the changing tempers
of men. We need wisdom, dear Lord, to do this task for
we are but men with finite understanding and limited
knowledge.

We confess that we do not have the wisdom of a
Solomon, the wit and brilliance of an Aristotle, the deep
insight of Jose Rizal, nor the homespun zing of a Will
Rogers. But with the evcr-availablc aid of the Holy
Spirit, we now humbly beseech Thee not for tasks equal
to our power but for power equal to our heavy task.

Father in heaven, we are humbled by the words of
our Sublime Paralytic:

No matter how the government tries to renew itself, all
of its efforts would amount to naught if there would be no
corresponding change in the hearts of the people.

Help us, dear Lord, to come up with a Constitution
that will, in essence, continually remind our people of
the timely words of the Prophet:

If My people, who are called by My name, wUl humble
themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their
wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive
their sin and will heal their land.

♦Appeared after the roll call

Help us to finish our new fundamental law in Thine
own good time as we 48 Commissioners bear in mind
that in things major we should have unity; in things
minor, liberty; but in all things always to demonstrate
charity.

We adore Your Holy Name; we praise You for what
You have done in and through us; and we petition Thee,
loving Heavenly Father, for a greater measure of Your
instruction, inspiration and sanctification.

This is our individual and collective prayer in the
wonderful and matchless name of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. Amen.

ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call
the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar . . . .

. Present*

Natividad . . .

. . Present*

Alonto

. Present

Nieva

. . Present

Aquino

. Present*

Nolledo ....

. . Present*

Azcuna

. Present*

Ople

. . Present*

Bacani

. Present

Padilla

. . Present

Bengzon

. Present*

Quesada ....

. . Present

Bennagen . . . .

. Present

Rama

. . Present*

Bernas

. Present

Regalado ....

. . Present

Rosario Braid . .

. Present

Reyes de los .

. . Present

Brocka

. Present*

Rigos

. . Present

Calderon

. Present

Rodrigo ....

. . Present

Castro de . . . .

. Present

Romulo ....

. . Present

Colayco

. Present

Rosales

. . Present

Concepcion . . .

. Present

Sarmiento . . .

. . Present

Davide

. Present

Suarez

. . Present

Foz

. Present

Sumulong . . .

. . Present

Garcia

. Present*

Tadeo

. . Present

Gascon

. Present*

Tan

. . Present

Guingona . . . .

. Absent

Tingson . . . .

. . Present

Jamir

. Present

Trenas

. . Present*

Laurel

. Present*

Uka

Lerum

. Present*

Villacorta . . .

. . Present

Maambong . . .

. Present*

Villegas

. . Present

Monsod

. Present

The President is present.

The roll call shows 32 Members responded to the call.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence
of a quorum.

The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
dispense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s
session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
approve the Journal of the previous session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
proceed to the Reference of Business.

Tffi PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
Ine Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

TTe Secretary-General will read the Reference of
Busmess.

reference of business

The Secretary-General read the following Com-
munications and Committee Reports, the President
making the corresponding references:

sion of the writ of habeas corpus shall need confirma-
tion of the legislature, and the nationalization of
industries and the exploitation of natural resources.

(Communication No. 493 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

Position paper of the Filipino-American Chamber of
Commerce, P.O. Box 7258, San Francisco, California,
94120, U.S.A., signed by its President, Mr. Juan G.
Collas, Jr., suggesting among others that the new Consti-
tution shall embody some features that can attract
foreign capital, that regulation of foreign capital shall
be left to legislation, and that FUipinos be allowed dual
citizenship.

(Communication No. 494 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

Letter from Mr. Norberto Navarro Caparas of 555 Kaun-
laran Street, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City,
proposing an amendment to Section 1 1 of the Proposed
Amendment to the Article on Social Justice, to wit: IN
APPROPRIATE CASES, LANDS OWNED BY THE
GOVERNMENT BUT WHICH HAVE ALREADY
BEEN CONVERTED BY OCCUPANTS INTO A
VIABLE COMMUNITY SHALL BE DONATED TO
THEM SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN A LAW TO BE
ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

(Communication No. 495 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

To the Steering Committee.

COMMUNICATIONS

^tter from Mr. Jovito A. Avancena of 25 Asteroid, Bel
Air, Makati, Metro Manila, and three hundred ninety
ot ers with their respective addresses, seeking the in-
cusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the
State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment
of conception.

(Communication No. 491 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

Tomas S. Tuazon of Motrico, La

Hrh anriTh Protection of the law fo

rich and the poor to promote national unity

(^Communication No. 492 - Constitutional Commi
To the Committee on Social Justice.

Communication from Mr. Pelagio B. Estopia, proposing
a parliamentary form of government with a bicameral
legislature, that declaration of martial law and suspen-

Letter from Mr. Edmundo A. Damatac of Lallo, Caga-
yan, advocating that the incumbent President and Vice-
President be given the chance to serve the six-year term
for which they have been elected.

(Communication No. 496 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory
Provisions.

Communication jointly submitted by the Bagong Alyan-
sang Makabayan, Society of Professionals for the Ad-
vancement of Democracy, League of Filipino Students,
Kapunungan san mag uuma sa Masbate, Simbahang
Katoliko sa Barangay, Kabataan para sa Demokrasya at
Nasyonalismo, and Masbate People’s Organization, all in
Masbate, suggesting among others the following: ( 1 ) re-
moval of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines,
(2) abrogation of the U.S.-R.P. Mutual Defense Treaty,
Military Assistance Agreement, R.P.-Japan Treaty of
Amity, Commerce and Navigation, (3) right to strike
and collective bargaining, and (4) creation of a human
rights commission.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

(Communication No. 497 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Cesar P. Nimez of Suba. Lilo-an, Cebu,
transmitting a joint resolution adopted by various civic
associations and organizations of Lilo-an, Cebu, con-
taining among others the following proposals: (1) all
title/lease contract documents of foreshore lands issued
during the Marcos regime be revoked or declared null
and void; (2) all foreshore land must be turned over to
the municipal government where they are situated; and
(3) all foreshore lands cannot be leased/titled for busi-
ness purposes.

(Communication No. 498 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

Letter from Mr. Roberto Lazaro of Mandaluyong,
Metro Manila, advocating that the Philippines be one of
the regular states of the United States.

(Communication No. 499 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Committee Report No. 35 submitted by the Committee
on the Legislative re Proposed Resolution No. 411 and
Proposed Resolution No. 428 informing the Com-
mission of their incorporation in Committee Report
No. 22 on the Article on the Legislative Department, as
reported out on July 7, 1986.

To the Archives.

Committee Report No. 36 on Proposed Resolution
No. 537, prepared by the Committee on Preamble,
National Territory, and Declaration of Principles,
entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI-
TUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES,

recommending its approval.

Sponsored by Hon. Davide, Jr., Nolledo, Sarmiento,
Tingson, Bengzon, Jr., Aquino, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos,
Rosario Braid, Quesada, de Castro, Nieva, Villacorta,
Rama, Bacani, Colayco, Calderon, Suarez, Ople, Gascon,
Villegas, Rosales, Azcuna, Foz and Garcia.

To the Steering Committee.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog-
nized.

CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)

Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

MR. ROMULO. I move that we continue tlie con-
sideration of Committee Report No. 34 on Proposed
Resolution No. 534. We are still in tlie period of amend-
ments.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The honorable Chairman and members of the Com-
mittee will please occupy the front table.

At this juncture, may we acknowledge the presence
of a good number of students from Maryknoll College,
St. Scholastica’s College, St. Joseph’s (Tollege and St.
Bridget’s College. So, we welcome all these young
people who have come to see our proceedings and to
show their interest in the documents that we are draft-
ing for our people.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog-
nized.

MR. ROMULO. When we adjourned yesterday, we
were in Section 8 and Commissioner Ople was discussing
his amendment. Inasmuch as he is not here, may I ask
the Committee if they are willing to defer consideration
of Section 8 and move to Section 9.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
Are we ready to proceed to Section 9?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, we are. Madam President.

MR. ROMULO. So, Madam President, may 1 ask that
Commissioner Davide be recognized for his amendments
on Section 9.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, before we move
on to Section 9, could we just have some clarifications
on Section 8? Is Commissioner Ople here?

THE PRESIDENT. He is not yet heie. So, we will
defer it.

MS. QUESADA. My concern. Madam President, is
about a member ol the fishing -industry called the
kasama or the equivalent of the tenant. They are not

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

covered in the provision on the preferential rights given
to fishermen who we refer to oftentimes as the small
boat owners. Actually, we are leaving out a particular
sector which, 1 understand, composes one of the largest
groups of this sector.

THE PRESIDENT. We will take that up when Com-
missioner Ople is here.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. We actually have a proposed sentence
there which will be an amendment to the amendment
of Commissioner Ople. We are going to have it typed
and distributed so that by the time he arrives, we can
consider it.

THE PRESIDENT. So, can we then proceed to
Section 9?

MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.

Q amendment is only to transfer Section

0 the Article on the National Economy and Patri-
mony which contains the general constitutional man-
a es or directives affecting all natural resources in-
cu mg agricultural, fishing and marine resources
^ ject, of course, to the provisions on this particulai
Article. But since this would involve the main thrusi
toward industrialization, I think the proper situs foi

ection 9 is the Article on the National Economy anc
Patrimony.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President,
ni^^^ president. Commissioner Bennagen is recog

MR. bennagen. I object to the deletion of Sectioi

MR. DAVIDE. This is not a deletion but merelv
transfer to another Article. merely

MR. BENNAGEN. But it *•

Article on Social Justice.

MR. DAVIDE. Not from the Constitution.
MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. It is still in the Constitution.

MR. BENNAGEN. I am interested in the provision as
part of the Article on Social Justice for tlie important
reason that agrarian reform as well as the other reforms
that have to be done in other areas, such as fishing and
marine resources, should be done in relation to the
complementary processes of industrialization. We do
not want to give the impression that the agrarian reform
program is the terminal act. We want Congress to look
at this as a part of the long-range process that ultimately
would lead to some kind of industrialization without
suggesting the type of industrialization that shall take
place.

MR. DAVIDE. That would not be the effect. Madam
President, because I am sure that the Committee on
National Economy and Patrimony will have to consider
all these. So, an integrated development plan would
necessarily be under the Article on National Econoiny
and Patrimony, but I am sure it will take into account
the provisions of social justice.

MR. BENNAGEN. We have already dropped the word
“integrated” partly because of its unsavory history.

MR. DAVIDE. Even so, may I request that Commis-
sioner Villegas, who is Chainnan of the Committee on
National Economy and Patrimony, be recognized for a
particular opinion on this matter?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, thank you.

As I said during the period of interpellations,
the section is really misplaced in the Article on
Justice because the very question of balance .

agriculture, industry and other sectors is a ^

question that has to be addressed by a planning ®
or the legislature at a very specific moment ot _
I do not think that it is a question of justice or .

being committed. That is why, as I mentioned, .

1 of the Article on the National Economy an
mony states the following:

The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent
national economy. The goals of the national economy are
more equitable distribution of income and wealth, full em
ployment of humane, physical and technological resources,
and sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by the nation for the benefit of the Filipiao
people.

So, that addresses already the issue of whether or not
we will produce goods for the basic needs of the
pie. It is stated very clearly that the goods, whether ey
be agricultural or industrial, should be produced or le
benefit of the Filipino people, with priority to e
welfare of the poor. In fact, that is very explicitly stated
here. In the attainment of these goals, all economic
sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

and a broader ownership base of private enterprises shall
be encouraged. So, the very question of how to develop
the various sectors is already addressed in this Section 1
of the Article. Tliat is why Section 9 is misplaced in the
Article on Social Justice.

MR. BENNAGEN. I do not think that the section
just read refers to the idea of linking the development
of agriculture, fishing and marine resources, specifically
with the idea of the complementary process of indus-
trialization. No reference was made to the concept of
a balanced agricultural and industrial development.
That is not the intent. We are merely suggesting that in
the process of domg reforms in agriculture, fishing and
marine resources, we should not forget the objective of
meeting the basic needs of the people, and eventually
also the process of industrialization. It has happened
that in the process of developing agriculture, fishing
and marine resources, the primary consideration has
been to respond to the demands of the external market
at the expense of meeting basic needs such as food. And
so, we are saying that it is a matter of social justice that
in the process of agricultural, fishing and marine
development, we should respond to the domestic needs
of consumption rather than the needs of the export
market.

We are saying that the proceeds from this develop-
ment, as well as the proceeds from export, should be
plowed back to agriculture and industry. But we are not
suggesting a kind of balanced agro-industrial develop-
ment because we foresee the time that the development
will take on a different course, even including the
tertiary sector.

has something like 10, 15, 20 or even 50 hectares and
he has five, seven or eight children? Eventually, we end
up with very small plots that are no longer productive.

So, we are saying tliat if agrarian reform is accom-
panied by industrialization, the labor surplus would
be absorbed by the industrial sector and would not
necessarily result in fragmenting the already fragmented
lands.

MR. VILLEGAS. I always have tlie impression that
the body is very clear that the agrarian reform program
is not in any way incompatible with industrialization.
On the contrary, a lot of people are talking about how
former landowners who are now going to receive just
compensation can spend their money on starting indus-
tries and other nonagricultural activities. I think that
was very, very clear in tlie minds of everyone. So, I
really do not see any danger in having a section on
agrarian refonn which would give the impression that
we are not interested also in industrialization. I do not
see the need to make that linkage explicit.

MR. BENNAGEN. Our feeling is that it is necessary
to put that here as a whole package. So, maybe we can
put that to a vote.

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.

MR. ROMULO. Before we put it to a vote, Commis-
sioner Rosario Braid would like to be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.

MR. VILLEGAS. But a very explicit statement was
already made, that all goods produced in the nation
shall be for the benefit of the Filipino people.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, but this could only refer to
agricultural goods and not industrial goods.

MR. VILLEGAS. No, “goods” mean all kinds of
goods.

MR. BENNAGEN. No, but we want a specific linkage
of the development programs in agricultural, fishing
and marine resources to meet our basic needs, export
needs and the need for industrialization. What is im-
portant is not to give the impression that agrarian
reform is a terminal act. Without this provision, pending
the deliberation on the Ople proposal linking agrarian
reform to industrial development, one gets the im-
pression. that we are only interested in agrarian reform.
The history of agrarian reform all over the world tells
us that the only successful agrarian reforms were linked
with industrialization.

I think that also answers the apprehensions of many
of us with respect to inheritance. For instance, the
question has been raised that what happens if one only

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, should
Section 9 were to remain in the Article on Social
Justice, may I offer an amendment which will read:
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF AGRICULTURAL, FISHING AND
MARINE RESOURCES TO MEET THE BASIC NEEDS
OF THE PEOPLE PARTICULARLY THE SUB-
SISTENCE SECTORS AND THE PROMOTION OF
SMALL- AND MEDIUM-SCALE ENTERPRISES TO
ACHIEVE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OBJECTIVE
OF THE COUNTRY.

medium-scaie enterpnses” from Section 10 and als
to focus on the miportance of the so<alled “altemativ
economy or ‘underground economy” of the unde
pnvileged subsistence sectors.

mix. IVWIVIULU. So, Madam President mav I ask that
we vote on the Davide amendment first? ’

DavwLmend^^^^r *o resolve the

to keen Serb ‘f the body resolves

amendLnt T ^ the Article on Social Justice, the

. . ® Commissioner Rosario Braid can be

taken up.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

So, are we now ready to vote on the proposed amend-
ment of Commissioner Davide? Commissioner Davide
seeks to transpose Section 9 of the Article on Social
Justice to the Article on National Economy and Patri-
mony. The reasons have been explained particularly by
Commissioner Villegas who is the Chairman of the
Committee on National Economy and Patrimony.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the pro-
posed amendment of Commissioner Davide with respect
to Section 9 which has been accepted by the Commit-
tee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment
is approved.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, we are willing
to transpose Section 9 to the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony provided the idea already
expressed in Section 1 of the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony will be so expanded as to
accommodate the spirit of Section 9, of course, on the
assumption that the Ople amendment will also be
considered part of the Article since that takes care of
the idea of linking agrarian reform with industrialization
in a very precise sense.

MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Villegas
be recognized. Madam President.

President, commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, I think it can be incorporated
m Section 1 and we will welcome specific amendments
when the occasion arises.

THE PRESIDENT. So, the Committee on Social
Justice can prepare its recommendation as to how the
same w be drafted. How about the statement regard-
ing Commissioner Ople’s amendment?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-

. MONSOD. We have also discussed with Commii
sioner Ople the transposition of certain ideas introduce
m le Article on Social Justice which are more apprc
pnate m the Article on National Economy and Patr
mony. And I think he is amenable to that provide
a some ideas are incorporated in the Article o
,, specifically refer to marginal <

sma ishermen. So, that has already been discusse
among the proponents.

of manifestation the

Section 9 to^ the [aspect to the transposition «

should be considered wi,hd"aw„

MR. DAVIDE. No, it was accepted by the Cor
mittee.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, will Commissioner
Ople manifest that he agrees with the statement of tlie
Committee?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President.

I do manifest my concurrence to the Committee s
proposal to transfer to the Article on National Economy
and Patrimony the national context with respect to the
exclusive reservation for the exploitation of our marine
wealth by Filipino citizens especially the small fisher-
men. But ahead of that. Madam President, if I am now
in the appropriate place, in behalf of the Committee
which has indicated its prior agreement, I would like
to read a modified amendment of Section 8. H
actually a joint formulation of the Committee and
the proponent. After the clause “protection, develop-
ment and conservation of such resources,” add tl"^
following: THE PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND TO
THE OFFSHORE FISHING GROUNDS OF SMALL
FISHERMEN FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION.

With respect to the words “municipal fisherrnei
and after taking counsel with Commissioner Rodrigo,
we felt that SMALL FISHERMEN would be more
appropriate because there are parts of the country,
for example, in Bulacan, which might be understoo
by municipal fishermen to refer to the “Propios or
the municipal fishponds owned by the municipa
governments for their income.

So, if the Committee accepts that change, I would
submit it. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, the Committee accepts.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog-
nized.

MR. DE CASTRO. Point of clarification. Madam
President. In Section 8, we used the term “marginal
fishermen”; now we are using “small fishermen.”
Yesterday, I made a reservation to look into the
meaning of “marginal.” If the honorable President will
allow me, I am ready to explain this.

THE PRESIDENT. Was it accepted by the Commit- THE PRESIDENT. May we know the result of the
tee? Commissioner’s research?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. DE CASTRO. It is not exactly a research. It is
just getting the full meaning of “marginal” which was
used as an adjective to “fishermen.” When we say
“marginal,” we mean a margin close to the hmit; and
more, particularly, in business it is referred to as
marginal profit or marginal cost. But if 1 were to get the
thinking is that the meaning of “marginal” is one living
almost within the margin of the standard of living, then
because if it is used as an adjective, such as in “marginal
fisherman,” he could be a fishennan today but a laborer
tomorrow because he is within the margin of being a
fisherman or something else. So, if tlie Committee’s
thinking is that tlie meaning of marghial is one Uving
almost within the margin of the standard of livmg, then
perhaps it may be used. My objection is the use of
“small fishermen” and “margin^ fishermen” in the
same section. I suggest that the Committee use the
same term in this section.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner OpIe
say?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, in the interest of style,
I think we need not be bound to one uniform word
that is repeated everytime the concept of a small fisher-
man or a marginal one must be reflected. If Commis-
sioner de Castro considers “small fishermen” as being
synonymous with “marginal fishermen,” then I think
the problem will not arise.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President.

We will just address a few clarificatory questions
to the Honorable Ople.

When we speak of “marginal,” as correctly pointed
out by the Honorable de Castro, it connotes the mean-
ing of a standard of living; and when we speak of
“small,” we are referring to size. Upon the other hand,
when we speak of “municipal,” we are thinking in
terms of a unit. That is why, for purposes of the record,
it is necessary to give meaningful interpretations to
these three terms as they are applied in the provisions
of the Article on Social Justice, because the words
“marginal” and “small” may be interchangeable but
not in connection with “municipal.” Is my under-
standing of the differentiation among these three terms
correct?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I think, if we were to
look for the widest common denominator to all of these
modifiers of “fishermen” - “marginal” in the sense that
he stands at the very margin of existence, he stands on
the very edge of life referring to his income and the

needs of his family; and then the concept of “municipal
fisherman” which has all the jurisprudential support
because this is really the technical term, except that this
is geography-bound — then the common denominator
would be “small fishermen.” It is in that sense that this
word is proposed to be used in the amendment.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, is the Commis-
sioner suggesting that we employ the term “small”?

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, when we talk of
the word “marginal,” it is quite clear that everyone is
thinking not of the act of fishing but the economic
situation of the fisherman. I think that is a common
understanding. As an alternative, the phrase “sub-
sistence fisherman,” which was earlier suggested by
Commissioner Rosario Braid, is completely unam-
biguous. It is understood that one is referring to what
Commissioner Natividad mentioned as “isang kahig,
isang tuka.”

MR. OPLE. I am willing to accept the amendment.
Madam President, so that the word “subsistence”
becomes the common denominator that I had spoken
of earlier.

MS. NIEVA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

MS. NIEVA. As long as the small fishermen are
accorded protection, we would abide by that word
“subsistence.”

THE PRESIDENT. So, that is accepted.

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is

recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Would Commissioner Ople
yield to a question on his amendment on Section 8?
Would this include protection from commercial fisher-
men in terms of complying with the seven-kilometer
ban on commercial vessels? There is an existing ban
on commercial vessels within seven kilometers from
the shoreline.

MR. OPLE. The seven-kilometer ban is an ad-
ministrative law that more or less fixed an arbitrary

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

legal distance from the shoreline. Although my under-
standing of the seven-kilometer ban from the shore is
that tliis is flexible because the coastlines of the country
are not uniform in terms of the appropriateness of a
seven-kilometer distance, the assumption is that in many
cases, the fishing grounds within seven kilometers are
most accessible to the small, municipal or marginal or
subsistence fishermen and that, therefore, no heavy
trawlers, whether Filipino or foreign, should be allowed
to fish in those waters. In this respect, I am not sure
that commercial fishing vessels of Filipino citizens are
banned.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

by changing the word “from” to AGAINST. I was
thinking it might be more emphatic. So, it would read:
“AGAINST foreign intrusion.”

MR. OPLE. I will have no objection, Madam Pres-
ident.

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts, Madam Pres-
ident.

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote on this
particular amendment?

MS. NIEVA. We are ready now for the voting.

BISHOP BACANI. May I ask Commissioner Ople if
his intent is really not to protect small fishermen even
though they may not be subsistence fishermen? For
example, m the case he mentioned in Zambales, I have
been acquam ted with them having worked there. There
are ishermen who are not subsistence fishermen in the
sense that they are not “isang kahig, isang tuka.” They
can be rather prosperous, and yet they would still need
k intrusion which the Gentleman

interest 5 ^ not be looking after the

who wniiiH h portion of our Fhipino population
intmsion u/ ^ io subsistence level if foreign

thev arp allowed to continue. At present, because

level yet ^ ^ ° ^ subsistence

ople Madam President, the phrase “subsistence
4. ^^nnld be used Uberally in the sense that it
restricted to the poorest fishermen who
npr,-^” -f existence day to day and who will

mkf V ^ tomorrow. I think it is a

liifp iK^ -7 io many of our fishermen in places

a, Zambales the idea that they are rich fishermen,
e are a king about varying degrees of self-sufficiency.

commercial or industrial nabobs in Iba,
a es. Some fishermen may be a little bit more
oth&Ts, but by the standard of the
sktA« ®°™”'®^‘^ial fishing vessels, they are all sub-
k 5iim^ cnnen. And so, the intent of the proposal

artnai ^ P®’^‘r°*ripassing with respect to real and
actual nshemen m the area who fish for a liviug.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the pro-
posed amendment of Commissioner Ople and the
others, which was accepted by the Committee?

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President, just for clarity.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. When we use the word “sub-
sistence,” as a logical process, we also protect the in-
terests of the small fishermen and this protection is not
excluded by the use of the word “subsistence,” which
we should look at as small but through a kind of socio-
logical and historical process, could be progressive but
still small in relation to an ever-increasing scale ot
production.

MR. OPLE. Yes. And we do not intend to penalize
them for their efficiency and success.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. OPLE. And so, I think it was in that context
that I accepted the explanation of Commissioner Bacani
earlier.

MR. BENNAGEN. It is also the sense that we should
give the vvord “marginal” a sociological and historical
process. What is marginal at some point could be
progressive at a future time but still marginal.

MR. OPLE. Yes, it is in that relative sense that we
deliberately employ the words “subsistence fishermen.”

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG. I wonder if Commissioner Ople THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
or the Committee will accept the perfecting amendment nized.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

BISHOP BACANI. In relation to the use of whatever
word, our Chairman, while we were discussing briefly,
pointed out that this does not mean tliat we will not
protect the other fishermen as well. We are just em-
phasizing that we will protect the subsistence fishermen
and, in the process, protect the interest of Filipino
fishermen as well.

MR. OPLE. Yes, that consequence follows, Madam
President.

MR. ROMULO. Can we have the amendment before
we vote, Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Will the Chairman please
read the sentence.

MS. NIEVA. Tlie sentence will read: THE PRO-
TECTION SHALL EXTEND TO THE OFFSHORE
FISHING GROUNDS OF SUBSISTENCE FISHER-
MEN AGAINST FOREIGN INTRUSION.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.

Can we now proceed to vote on the entire Section 8?

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are still two
registered speakers for amendments on Section 8. I ask
that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, relative to the
statement of Commissioner Ople that the word
“municip3l which has a technical meaning cannot be
understood or can be misunderstood by our common
people, I propose the following amendment on line 4,
on the phrase “particularly municipal fishing grounds”:
delete the word “municipal” and m lieu thereof insert
COMMUNAL; after “grounds,” delete the period (.)
and add FOR SMALL FISHERMEN, so that that
phrase would read: “particularly COMMUNAL fishing
grounds FOR SMALL FISHERMEN.”

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. We just want to ask Commissioner
Rodrigo that if one were to read the entire first part,
would there be a redundancy? We are talking about the
protection of the rights of subsistence fishermen
especially those from local communities to the pre-
ferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore, and now we will

also say “particularly . . .” What is the word, Madam
President?

MR. RODRIGO. COMMUNAL. I wiU have no objec-
tion.

MR. MONSOD. Would it be repetitive?

MR. RODRIGO. My only objection here is the use of
the word “municipal ” because “municipal fishing
grounds” can be misunderstood. As Commissioner Ople
has said, in my home province of Bulacan, his home-
town, the Municipality of Hagonoy, owns fishponds. I
know that the Municipality of Paombong also owns
fishponds. I know that the Municipality of Paombong
also owns fishponds called “Propios.” And so, when
fishermen or people in Bulacan read “municipal fishing
grounds,” they will think that these refer to fishponds
owned by the municipality, which is not the case.

MR. MONSOD. That is true.

MR. RODRIGO. But if the Committee will agree to
the deletion of the whole phrase, I will have no objec-
tion.

MR. MONSOD. We think we see the problem there.
May we ask Commissioner Ople, from whom this came
from in the first place — the other day when he wanted
to make particular mention of municipal fishing grounds
— whether the use of the words “the communal marine
and fishing resources” in the previous line already
covered the intention he had the other day?

MR. OPLE. Yes. I do not think there is any intention
to refer to the municipal “Propios” of the coastal towns
of Bulacan, Madam President. On the point raised by
Commissioner Rodrigo, the concern is really about the
popular perception of what will mean in some parts of
the country, including Bulacan, although I would like to
assure Commissioner Rodrigo that this phenomenon
known as the municipal “Propios” so far, according to
my best knowledge, is still unique to the coastal towns
of Bulacan, meaning, this is an innovative municipal
income scheme which is not yet shared in other parts of
the country. So, if there is any danger of popular mis-
understanding, it will be confined to those towns in
Bulacan that Commissioner Rodrigo has earlier

enumerated.

Thank you.

MR. RODRIGO. Does the Committee intend to
delete the whole phrase “particularly municipal fishing
grounds”?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, we are asking this clarificatory
question. If the words “communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore” already would
include the idea of municipal fishing grounds, then this

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8. 1986

particular phrase may be deleted to avoid misunder-
standing.

MR. OPLE. Yes, I think so, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. So, I modify my amendment to
delete the phrase “particularly municipal fishing
grounds.”

MS. NIEVA. The Committee accepts.

MR. OPLE. My only difficulty, Madam President, is
that if the term “municipal fishermen ” which has a
very rich legal foundation in jurisprudence, it being the
precise legal term, is encountered elsewhere in the
Constitution, will Commissioner Rodrigo still raise the
same concern and anxiety?

MR. RODRIGO. We understand the technical mean-
ing of “municipal,” but let us not forget that this
Constitution will be submitted to the people in a plebi-
scite and they may not understand “municipal fishing
pounds. They might think that these are fishponds
belon^g to the mumcipality or these are fishing

^ ^ municipality, which is

not the intended meaning of “municipal” in this phrase.

th^^nrnnn^^i Context, I am glad to support

President ° Commissioner Rodrigo, Madam

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you.

MS. NIEVA. Thank you.
accede to the deletion of
municipal fishing grounds.”

As we said before, we
the phrase “particularly

THE PRESIDENT. The whole phrase will be deleted?
MS. NIEVA. Yes, Madam President.

tion nf th there any objection to the d

grniinHc” f ^ “Particularly municipal fish

nnnp th ^®otion 8? (Silence) The Chair hi

none, the amendment is approved.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President I ask

missionerdelos Reyes be recognized

de los Re

MR. DE LOS REYES Moh n •

to propose to the Committ^

ambit of protection what is knn withm I

.. 7 known as fish workers

the kasama ng mga mangingisda. workers

I discovered from Commissioner Quesada and a
from some complaints of small fishermen that in 1
same way that there is the sharing system or kasa,

system in agricultural lands, there is also such a thing
among the small fishermen who, it would appear, are
actually the most exploited class of fishermen, even
more exploited than the marginal fishermen that we
were talking about. And this kasama fishermen who
comprise 45,000 of the total work force of commercial
fishing operations are the former subsistence fishennen
who were dislocated by the monopolizing and superior
commercial operations of the big fishermen who own
boats and all that. Thus, they find no alternative but to
join the operations as fish workers. Their daily income
is only about P5.00 a day, because like the kasama in
agricultural land, all expenses are deducted from their
share and this sharing arrangement, which is prevalent
in municipal and commercial fishing, does put these
fish workers or the kasama or small fishermen at a great
disadvantage. And this is true in Bulan, Sorsogon,
Danao, Cavite, Laguna Lake, and others including
Albay.

And so, my proposal, subject to style, of course, is
to include a sentence somewhere in Section 8 that fish
workers shall receive a just share of their labor in the
enjoyment of marine and fishing resources. We shall
include fish workers in the same manner that we in-
cluded farmers, regular farm workers and seasonal farm
workers in the agrarian reform. Thus, we protect
everybody.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will the Commissioner
from Laguna yield to a question?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President.

MR. OPLE. If these are workers of commercial fish-
ing vessels, should they not fall under the labor provi-
sion of the Article on Social Justice?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Ordinarily, they should fall
under the provisions on labor, but from my knowledge,
they are not covered by existing labor laws.

MR. OPLE. I would like to assert. Madam President,
that there is no ground whatsoever why they should not
be covered by labor laws when there is a very clear
employer-employee relationship in commercial fishing
operations.

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, for the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-
nized.

MS. AQUINO. The Committee would like to be
enlightened on the basis of a specific and expressed
proviso that would address this particular group. Speci-
fically, how significant is the group that Commissioner
de los Reyes is referring to in terms of number? How
significant are they as far as the specificity of their
demands is concerned because, offhand, our perception

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986‘

is that they could be rightfully covered under “farm
workers” or, parenthetically, the labor law might apply
if there is an employer-employee relationship.

MR. DE LOS REYES. But, as found in the book
Countryside Report by Lusa Research Staff which
focused on five major industries: rice, coconut, sugar,
fishing and abaca, basnig workers alone or trawl workers
comprise 45,000 of the total work force of commercial
fishing operations and there are those who merely rent
small motorized bancas. It is true tliat tliese workers
could be covered ordinarily by the provisions on labor,
but tlien there is no specific mention of small fish
workers. Inasmuch as we are discussing aquatic reform
in the same way that we have given protection not only
to tenant farmers but to regular farm workers which,
as explained, refer to wage farm workers, as well as
seasonal fami workers, I believe there is also a necessity
for specifying protection to fish workers.

MR. OPLE. The term “fish workers” appears for the
first time in the vocabulary of labor. This can refer to the
workers assisting fish vendors in Divisoria, for example.

MR. DE LOS REYES. According to this definition, it
includes bugadores, refening to fish haulers; maniniklis,
fish sorters; and Pescadores, fish haulers and sorters.

MR. OPLE. So, these are workers in the commercial
fishing industry. The fish worker, who is undoubtedly
valid in the context of this survey which looks like a
socioeconomic suiwey, has gained no definite meaning in
law and jurisprudence, unlike municipal fishermen. But,
apparently, they exist as a class; or better yet as a sub-
class of the huge underclass of subsistence fishermen. I
do not know if the concern of Commissioner de los
Reyes should be accommodated specifically, or the
Committee might want to record very clearly and
definitively the intent of Section 8 as being able to
embrace the problems and the need for social justice of
this subclass of the fishing underclass.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, although we
can always place on record that Section 8 embraces
fish workers, yet if it is not specifically provided in the
Constitution, it will amount to nothing useful to these
fish workers. These fish workers are usually hired on a
temporary and contractual basis. They have no security
of employment, for which reason their employment is
hanging. Because of this, trawl owners maintain a firm
hold over them. They are also being forced to do other
jobs like painting and repairing of fishing gears without
pay, and they are even obliged to dry fish for free. In
other cases where the workers become physically dis-
abled, the owner automatically retires him from his job
without any compensation whatsoever, with no social
security compensation. Therefore, although there has
been no jurisprudence yet which states that there is

such a thing as fish worker, I find notliing wrong in
starting it now in this Constitution which we are pro-
mulgating. That is why we are revising and amending
this Constitution to inject ideas. And since we are
already in the process of protecting all marginal people,
all people who are on the subsistence level — we have
given protection to industrial labor; we have given pro-
tection to farm workers — I certainly find nothing
objectionable in emphasizing also the rights of aquatic
workers.

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

MR. LERUM. Madam President, may I be allowed to
ask some questions?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Lerum is recog-
nized.

MR. LERUM. Commissioner de los Reyes spoke of
exploitation. Who are exploiting these so-called fish
workers? Do they have employers?

MR. DE LOS REYES. The owners of motorized
bancas, the owners of the trawlers employ these people
who are not given their just wage.

MR. LERUM. In that case, they are covered by the
labor provision of this section. That is why I ask: Who
are exploiting these people? If the Commissioner says
that their employers are exploititig them, then there is
the so-called employer-employee relationship and this
is covered by the social justice provision that we are
talking about now.

MR. DE LOS REYES. But even under the existing
Labor Code, agricultural laborers are included, and yet
this Commission found it necessary to classify agricul-
tural workers as a different group. So, if the Gentle-
man’s reasoning will be followed, there would have
been no necessity to place in this report of the Com-
mittee on Social Justice any provision specifically
dealing with agrarian reform, because agricultural
laborers, like those laborers working in big haciendas,
sugar mills and agri-business types like Canlubang, for
example, are actually covered by the labor laws. I think
the Gentleman knows that very well because he is the
lawyer of the labor union in Canlubang. But we still
provided for a separate section on agrarian reform to
emphasize the rights in particular of land workers. And
now, this proposal is an attempt also to emphasize the
rights of the small fish workers, because in our desire to
help the marginal fishermen or those who actually catch
fish, we forget the fish workers.

MR. LERUM. May I call the Gentleman’s attention to
what we have already approved. We have provided for a
living wage, and since this class of workers is covered,
then they are entitled to a living wage. Maybe the

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

trouble is in the implementation of the provisions of the
Labor Code. Maybe these people are not organized, and
so they are subject to exploitation.

MR. DE LOS REYES. They are forgotten. But if we
place this in the Constitution, they will no longer be
forgotten because our attention will be called to their
specific plight. That is the sense.

MR. LERUM. They are not really forgotten because
we are trying to organize them. As a matter of fact, we
are now going into the organization of workers in
fishing boats. But always there is that apathy on the
part of the workers that it is better if they are not or-
ganized because if they are, they are afraid that imme-
diately after organization, many of them will be
dismissed. We have to remove this obstacle. But with
regard to the Gentleman’s concern, 1 can assure him that
these workers are already covered by the provision on
labor in the Article on Social Justice.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is seeking
recognition.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. We support the sentiment behind tlie
proposal of Commissioner de los Reyes. Some members
of the Committee, however, feel that once we start
enumerating, we might be excluding. For example, how
do we treat the workers in poultry farms? What about
the helpers in sari-sari stores who are exploited by the
owners particularly foreign or Chinese store owners?
We can go on and on and we are afraid that we might
then go into too much detail for a Constitution.

However, I believe that the answer of Commissioner
Lerum that they are deemed included in the Article on
Social Justice might be adequate for Commissioner de
los Reyes.

THE PRESIDENT. How about Commissioner Maam-
bong?

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

MS. QUESADA. Yes. Thank you. Madam President.

In the definition of fish workers, did Commissioner

e os eyes also include the kasama ng maliliit na
mangingisda?

MR_ DE LOS REYES. That is precisely the bulk of
these fish workers.

a ff ■ ^ think this particular group would

1 er rom the commercial fish workers because these
asama ng maliliit na mangingisda are those who hire
out their services to small boat owners, who may or may
not own a boat and whose remuneration comes in the
orm 0 a share in the catch after all the expenses in the
production are deducted. This particular group, who
would be the equivalent of tenants, are not covered
by the ^bor Code because they are not considered
workers but are called kasama. Is that then a part of the
definition of fish workers?

h f tv. is not only a part but tf

u 0 the definition of fish workers. But I did n<

anymore because kasama is usually ass<
ciated with agncultural tenancy operation.

MS. QUESADA. But they compose the majority (
what we call municipal fishermen.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Precisely, Madam President.

MS. QUESADA^ Municipal fishermen in the Philip-
pines, as of the 1982 data of the Countryside Report,
comprise 72 percent or 574,000 of those employed in
the fishing industry alone.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. Madam President.

Will Honorable de los Reyes entertain a question
regarding his proposed amendment?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Gladly.

MR. MAAMBONG. I am constrained to rise because
I come from an area where there are trawlers and purse
seiners. 1 would like to mform the honorable Corn-
missioner that in that area, most of the workers lu
trawlers and purse seiners are paid under a share system
in the sense that whatever catch the trawler or the
purse seiner will get, they have a certain percentage. And
while they are at sea, they are given subsistence and that
is charged to their share. That is in general terms.

There are also trawl owners whci really pay them
wages, just like what Commissioner Lerum has said, and
probably those persons are covered by the Labor Code.

My question is this: Is the proposed amendment
directed to those fishing workers in trawlers or purse
seiners who are paid on a share system? And is the pro-
posed amendment also intended to cover those using
the same kind of fishing methods and who are paid
under the system covered by the Labor Code? Are both
these employees or shareholders of these fishing vessels
covered?

MR. DE LOS REYES. They are covered. But as I was
saying, although it is true that ordinarily they should be
covered under the Labor Code, the fact of the matter
is that we concentrate our minds and energies on indus-

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

trial laborers. The labor leaders do not have time for
these small fish workers.

MR. MAAMBONG. As I said, I am concerned because
most of the people living in my area, in the towns of
Asturias, Tuburan and Balamban, are actually working
in these trawlers, and they feel oppressed also because
in the sharing, they only get so much of the catch, and
if there is no catch at all — sometimes they do not have
any catch at all — they do not get anything. At the same
time, the expenses which they mcur while they are on
the vessel keep on growing every day, especially the
subsistence; and that is why I also share this concern.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we request a
vote?

MR. ROMULO. May we have the amendment.
Madam President, and then the vote?

THE PRESIDENT. The general concern seems to be
that the matter proposed by Commissioner de los Reyes
can be the subject of legislation, rather than being
placed in the Constitution. So then, will Commissioner
de los Reyes read his proposed amendment?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President. Subject
to style and relocation, it will read; FISHWORKERS
SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE OF THEIR LABOR
IN THE ENJOYMENT OF MARINE AND FISHING
RESOURCES. That is very simple.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

The results show 13 votes in favor and 11 votes
against; the amendment is approved.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are no
further registered speakers. I believe it is time to vote on
Section 8 as a whole.

MS. NIEVA. Can we have the last sentence again,
because there have been so many changes?

MS. AQUINO. Is there any definite formulation here?

MS. NIEVA. Yes, he had an amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. The amendment of Commissioner
de los Reyes?

MS. NIEVA. We would like to have the amendment
of Commissioner de los Reyes again.

MR. ROMULO. Having won a victory, he has dis-
appeared.

THE PRESIDENT. I have a copy.

MR. ROMULO. Will Commissioner de los Reyes give
his amendment which he just won?

THE PRESIDENT. We are giving a copy of the pro-
posed amendment to the Chairman.

MR. DE LOS REYES. The new sentence will read:
Fishworkers shall receive a just share of their labor in
the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.

MS. AQUINO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-
nized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. As amended by Commissioner
Ople, the sentence will read: “Fishworkers shall receive
a just share of THE FRUITS of their labor.”

MS. AQUINO. Madam President,with due respect to
Commissioner de los Reyes, without intending to over-
turn the whole thing in the body, is he definite in that
formulation because the impression we got is that he
wanted it placed somewhere in Section 8 as a concept.
Or should we place it as it is now formulated?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, because Section 8 refers
to marine and fishing resources. If we will repeat the
words “marine and fishing resources,” there will be re-
dundancy. That is why I said this is subject to style. But
as reworded now, it conveys the idea that we sought for.

the PRESIDENT. Will it be the last sentence of the
section?

MR. DE LOS REYES. It could be the last. No, I
think it should be before the last sentence because the
Ople amendment refers to intrusion of foreign invest-
ments.

MR. ROMULO. So, what is the amendment now? It
seems to me we voted on something else.

THE PRESIDENT. It is just in placing it; that is only
the form.

MR. DE LOS REYES. It is already the problem of
Commissioner Rodrigo. (Laughter)

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. In the meantime, can we have it
on the last sentence while the Committee on Style
decides where to put it?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President. MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. MAAMBONG Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, just a point of
clarification. Are employers of trawlers included in fish
workers?

MR. MAAMBONG. Would it not dilute his approved
amendment if we use the words “fishing workers” be-
cause I feel that the term “fishworkers” is not really. . .

MR. DE LOS REYES. What word does the Gentle-
man want?

MR. MAAMBONG. Fishing workers.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, that is the explanation.

MR. MONSOD. Also employees of large fishing com-
panies?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Fishing workers?

MR. MAAMBONG. Yes. If it would dilute the inten-
tion, I will not press. I am Just asking this question.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

MR. DE LOS REYES. I am not a grammarian; if
“fishing workers” is better, it means the same thing;
it refers to fish.

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

MR. DE CASTRO. Point of inquiry, Madam Pres-
ent.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog-

MR. BENGZON. Can we not leave that to the Com-
mittee on Style?

MR. MAAMBONG. We can leave that to the Com-
mittee then.

Thank you.

hav'!tted\po''nf ^ '

the president. No, those are just clarificatioi

tioTK^ CASTRO. Or are we making some clarifi

amp ^ worker is because there was

upon? Commissioner Ople that we have vol

THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me, let us have some
order, please. There being some changes, I believe the
Chair will submit the whole motion again to a vote,
because we do not know anymore what has been voted
upon.

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President. I think if we
do not get the precise definition of “fish workers,” then
the whole voting process would be misunderstood.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

monsod. I think the Committee is being i
styling in rewriting the sentence. W

hpin t included because that might

help to the drafters of the sentence.

^ ^ question; Would work(

ish cannenes be included in the word “fish worker

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair will call for a suspen-
sion of the session for a few minutes. And Commissioner
de los Reyes will please approach the Committee so as
to clarify this matter.

It was 11:08 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION'

MR. DE LOS REYES T • j

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maamboi
recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG. I would just like to ask
missioner de los Reyes a clarificatory question.

At 1 1:20 a.m. , the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

Before we suspended the session, the Chair had
already indicated its reaction to the voting - that there
has been some confusion on the issues involved in the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
So, shall we have Commissioner de los Reyes read again
his proposed amendments?

Commissioner Tan is recognized.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8. 1986

SR. TAN. Point of order, Madam President. I am all
confused in tliis forest of amendments. I thought we
liad already finished the interpellation, and were sup-
posed to be in the period of amendments. But then, we
were questioning each other and amending and debat-
ing. That is why we got confused. And tlien, this fish
story came in. It did not pass the Committee; it was
not in the interpellation and we are supposed to vote. It
is all confusing.

THE PRESIDENT. Where is Commissioner de los
Reyes?

MR. ROMULO. Commissioner de los Reyes has
sought refuge somewhere else.

THE PRESIDENT. We will have his proposed amend-
ment as reworded or whatever, submitted.

Will Commissioner de los Reyes please state his pro-
posed amendment because the Chair has resolved to
submit it to another voting in view of the confusion of
some of the Members?

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I ask the Secretariat to
read what has been approved?

THE PRESIDENT. What we have here, the first
version reads: “Fishworkers shall receive a just share
from their labor in the enjoyment of marine and fishing
resources.” Then it was amended by Commissioner
Ople, and it now reads: “Fishworkers shall receive a just
share from THE FRUITS of their labor.” Is this last
statement correct?

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, I just agreed
to the Ople suggestion because I thought that this is just
a matter of style. But if that amendment will cause
confusion which will warrant another voting I will just
stick by my former amendment and reject the Ople
amendment. And I respectfully object to another voting
because we have already won by a slight margm and we
have worked hard for that amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. So then the provision reads:
“Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor
in the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.” Were
there some questions being propounded by members of
the Committee?

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. I voted in favor of the amendment but
on deeper reflection, I realize that it is rather very con-
fusing especially with the clarifications made later. So I
am seeking for a reconsideration of the approval of the
proposed amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the
motion for reconsideration of Commissioner Davide just
to eliminate all forms of confusion over this particular
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion
is approved and the matter is again submitted to the
body.

Is there any further question from the Committee?

MR. MONSOD. May we request a vote, Madam Pres-
ident?

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I know from Com-
missioner Davide what particular answer to the inter-
pellation caused the confusion?

MR. DAVIDE. The confusion arose out of the
admission by the Commissioner that fish workers would
even apply to the so-called employees of big business
engaged in fishing.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Not canneries. Madam Pres-
ident.

MR. DAVIDE. For instance, trawlers or purse
seiners, or employees engaged as such would be con-
sidered fish workers. To my mind, they should be
covered by the ordinary rules on labor legislation under
which they would enjoy better benefits. Now, if we will
reduce their category to that of an ordinary fish worker
entitled only to a just share in the fruits of their labor,
we would be treating them in a much lower category
and, therefore, we would be reducing the benefits that
they would be entitled to.

My understanding of the original proposal for which
reason I voted was that they would refer still to the so-
called marginal fish workers who, in certain areas like
Southern Cebu, may become, in effect, partners in a
bigger enterprise owned by the privileged class.

And so, I feel that we must have to distinguish the
particular class of fish workers, whether fish workers of
big capitalists or fish workers engaged only in marginal
fishing.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Am I to understand that fish
workers employed by big capitalists are not exploited?

MR. DAVIDE. They are exploited, but we have the
labor laws which will apply to them, and we have
approved already the subdivision on labor.

MR. DE LOS REYES. This proposal covers what the
Commissioner envisions. The fishing workers in Cebu
are suffering under the exploitation of trawl operators,
but if it includes also big-time capitalists, what is wrong
in stating that fishing workers shall receive a just share
of their labor?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. DAVIDE. That is the problem, because with a
separate provision for them, it may be construed as
making a separate provision for them with the possible
interpretation that they are no longer within the scope
of the provision on labor where the ordinary laborers
really have greater benefits, advantages and privileges.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may the Commit-
tee be recognized?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I believe that this
matter has been discussed for almost an hour now. May
we request a vote because all the arguments have already
been ventilated in this body?

MR. DE LOS REYES. It was discussed, and we
already won by two or three votes. The discussion has
been prolonged because there was a motion for recon-
sideration. I already explained that this refers to
kasama ng maliliit na mangingisda or simply kasamd
I yield to the Chair.

VOTING

The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities to the preferential use of
the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland
and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen
through appropriate technology, research, financial, pro-
duction and marketing assistance, and other services. The
State shall also protect, develop and conserve such re-
sources. The protection shall extend to the offshore fishing
grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fish workers shall receive a just share from their labor in
the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. I just would like to invite the atten-
tion of the Committee that before ‘‘provide” in t le
second sentence, there is the word “also”; and be ore
“financial,” there should be “and adequate,” whici
were not read.

MS. NIEVA. The reason we removed the first “also ^
is that this was such a long enumeration that we fe w
could cut some of the sentences.

« amendment reads: “FISE

SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE FROf
THEIR LABOR IN THE ENJOYMENT OF MARIN
AND FISHING RESOURCES.”

Those in favor of this particular proposed amend-
ment will please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

Those against will please raise their hand. (Few Mem-
bers raised their hand.)

The results show 19 votes in favor and 13 against; the
amendment is approved.

MR. DAVIDE. It is all right, but what about the
words “and adequate”?

MS. NIEVA. Yes. It should read “adequate financial.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection
entire Section 8 as read by the Chairman of the ® .
mittee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the w
section is approved.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President.

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I go out, Madam Pres-
ident. I was about to answer a phone call when I was
called.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President,
nized ^ PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog-

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog-
nized.

MR. ROMULO. There are no more sections under
“Agrarian Land Reform” to be amended. I
Committee if it would now like to take up the Co y
amendment on the section on labor.

8 f wb^p^ Perhaps we can now vote on Sectic

8 as a whole. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. May I just comment that the complete
title is “Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Will the Chairman read the
entire section as drafted.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, Madam President.

The body will notice that since we had many enu-
merations in the second part, we have changed some of
the punctuation marks. Section 8 reads as follows;

MR. OPLE. Madam President, apropos of this, may I
reserve the right, together with Commissioner Bennagen,
immediately afterwards, to propose an . amendment,
consisting of a new section under the group of sections
denominated as “Agrarian and Natural Resources
Reform.”

Thank you.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I am asking the
Committee if it would now like to take up the Colayco
amendment.

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

MR. ROMULO. Since the Committee agrees, Madam
President, I ask that Commissioner Colayco be recog-
nized.

THE PRESIDENT. That refers to Section 3 (a), (b),
(c) and (d).

Commissioner Colayco is recognized.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you, Madam President.

I realize tliat since my proposal I have become
persona non grata to some members of the Committee.
I want to assure them that in pushing for this amend-
ment I share their sentiment for the cause of labor and
that I am acting from a firm conviction that it will
improve not only the fonn of our Constitution but, at
the same time, enhance the cause of labor. Surely,
personally, I do not think that in pushing for this
reform, I am doing labor a disservice.

The body will notice that Section 3 starts like this:
“It shall be the duty of the State to afford full protec-
tion to labor,” and then it proceeds to enumerate the
different rights which have been granted to the workers
under current legislation. All these rights are enume-
rated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). When Commissioner
Aquino interpellated me and asked me why this
enumeration was felt to be necessary, she explained that
it was the intention of the Committee to elevate the
laws that have provided for these benefits to labor to a
constitutional level. I have no quarrel with that, and I
am sure that everybody else would like to afford to
labor every possible protection available under our law.
My reservation, as I expressed earlier, is that there
would seem to be no need for this enumeration be-
cause these laws are a full guarantee, as they stand, for
the protection of these rights are already in our law
books.

But, as I mentioned earlier, we cannot ignore the
growing complaint, if not attack, against the way
we are formulating our Constitution, to the effect that
we are unnecessarily using too many words, too many
sentences, too many paragraphs which could be com-
pressed probably in one or two sentences. And this
particular comment is applicable to this present section.
If the purpose of the Committee is to guarantee the
rights heretofore granted by law to labor, we can do
that in one sentence and, at the same time, accomplish
what it wants us to do — to elevate the protection to
labor to a constitutional level. And so, 1 came out with
the first sentence which takes care of this. My proposal
is for the first sentence to read like this: THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY
THE LAW TO WORKERS. That simple sentence is a

mandate to future Congress. Do not touch; do not clip;
do not diminish; do not repeal any of the laws which
have been granted or which have been approved for the
protection of labor. We cannot ask fora more emphatic
and clear mandate to Congress to preserve, to maintain,
to protect all the rights granted by the law. As to the
last sentence in paragraph (b), the Committee wants to
emphasize, among other rights, the right of labor to
participate in policy- and decision-making processes
affecting its interest. This is good but I think my second
sentence goes even beyond that because I say, PRO-
MOTE MUTUAL COOPERATION BETWEEN WORK-
ERS AND THEIR EMPLOYERS — this is the important
phrase - BASED ON SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. The
words SHARED RESPONSIBILITY mean nothing else
but the right to share in decision-making after consulta-
tion; and if we want to go further, even the right to
representation in the board.

These are concepts which may sound new to us, and
I understand the concern, even impatience, of my
friend. Commissioner Foz, that we should grant to labor
everything possible. But we are not yet attuned to these
concepts, althougli these concepts are now applied and
accepted in other countries. Nevertheless, sooner or
later, we will reach this. We will turn capital toward this.
If I may use a favorite Visayan saying which I have
managed to learn: “Hinay-hinay, basta kanunay.” Let us
go easy; we will reach that, we will get it; impatience
will not help us nor will it help labor because we will
only succeed in antagonizing capital. Little by little our
capitalists or employers are beginning to understand
that it is their duty to share the benefits of their indus-
tries with labor.

The last paragraph, paragraph (d), of Section 3 says:

Regulate relations between workers and employers in
a manner that recognizes the primacy of the rights of labor
to its just share and the corresponding rights of business
enterprises to realize their growth potential and reasonable
returns on investments.

This is a very nice statement, but I believe it can be
trimmed down. At first — I do not mind telling this
body that I burned the midnight oil just to compress
this, and at the same time, to retain the purpose of
the Committee — I was tempted to use the phrase
“decent living wage” appearing in paragraph (b) of this
article. The phrase “decent living wage” was first used
in, I think, the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII entitled,
Renm Novarum; living wage includes not only food and
recreation; but social and religious opportunities not
only for the worker but also for his wife and his family.
But I did not think that this was enough and so I came
with this expression: AND ENSURE THEIR JUST
SHARE OF ALL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR.
The term “fruits” of labor covers not only their just
wages and profit sharing, but also sharing in ownership
because all these are fruits of their labor.

So I believe that in compressing the four paragraphs
into the three sentences which I am proposing, 1 was

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

able to retain the substance and the intent of the
Committee.

I am, therefore, requesting the Committee to accept
my proposal to trim down the wording of Section 3,
and, if I may paraphrase the inimitable colleague of
ours. Commissioner Uka: “What is one word less among
friends?”

Thank you.

MS. AQUINO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-
nized.

MS. AQUINO. On behalf of the Committee, first,
we deeply regret that we cannot accept the proposal
of Commissioner Colayco, although we view with
enthusiasm the introduction of a new concept of
shared responsibility” which we could eventually want
to incorporate in the draft. With due respect to Com-
missioner Colayco, we sincerely appreciate his concern;
however, we are deeply disturbed by this preoccupation
with brevity. It is already some kind of a short-lived
atavism that is going a bit too far. The draft admittedly
is too long but it is long because it precisely reflects
the gains that have been made by the workers and the
labor force in its thorough-going push-and-pull struggle
or the assertion of their rights. Ln fact, the gains have
been mstitutionalized in the 1935 and 1973 Constitu-
ticms. The minute we scuttle that, it amounts to no
other interpretation but withdrawal. We could talk
ourselves blue in the face and insist for the record that
there is no intention to withdraw or diminish, but
after they have been virtually institutionalized in the
two fundamental documents, it would amount to
nothing else than diminishment. It is our concern,
because we have been exposed in the public hearings
with the labor group, that all of the rights provided
herein are their barest minimum and irreducible
demands. It is our fear that the minute we touch it,
history will judge us unkindly. The future generation
will judge us harshly. It is our concern that if we
sacrifice the sanctity of the mandate in the altar of
brevity, we might end up scorned both ways.

MR. COLAYCO. May I answer?

MS. AQUINO. Yes.

MR. COLAYCO. I share the Commissioner’s concern
for the laborers because earUer, before I stood up, I
tried to sound her out. I am referring now to Commis-
sioner Aquino. I tried to sound her out on how we
could get some possible compromise, but she said the
laborers would be disappointed if this Utany of rights
is not spelled out. But without sounding critical, we are
not a Code Committee here. We are trying to frame a
Constitution and we have to observe certain cardinal

traditional norms which have been followed in almost
all Constitutions.

The Constitution of India has been mentioned; but
remember, India has millions and millions of people.
We are only 55 million. That is why in the composition
of the Constitution of India, there are several sections
which are addressed to the different provinces and
tribes, we might call them, which compose the entire
nation of India.

At any rate, I do not think that the statement that
the State shall protect all the rights granted by law to
workers is a withdrawal from a higher or better position.

I think that this concrete, clear statement is a clearer
mandate. Pardon me for citing a new statement on the
question of brevity. The first quality, brevity, is to
emphasize its uniqueness or distinctiveness in relation
to ordmary forms of lawmaking. A Constitution is,
after all, rather different from a municipal ordinance
on sewers and drains. A short text, by its very simplicity,
can also be more readily comprehended by the genera
public, and this facilitates national consensus building
which is one of the prime objectives of democratic
constitu tionalism .

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, on behalf of the
lay people in this Constitutional Commission, I vvou ^
also like to express our sentiment after getting hold o
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Colayco.

We said that the Constitution we are drafting is
to be a new one that would truly be reflective o
sentiments and aspirations of our people. We wou i ^
this to be a Constitution which ordinary indiyidua
nonlawyers, farmers, workers, urban poor, fislierm »
fish workers, women, and even children — can eas
understand, so that when they read the Constitu lO »
they do not have to dig up the Journal of the Conimi
sion to understand the intentions.

Fo example, with the proposed amendment
says; “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL
RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORKEK^^^
I, an ordinary worker, would not know just
these rights are if I have not even gotten hold ot
Labor Code and if I do not know how to read as goo
as professionals. So, I would not really know just wha
the new Constitution has provided this time.

In our prayers, we often say, “Let those who have
less in life have more in law.” If a worker would not get
hold of this provision, then he would very well ask,
“What has the new Constitution granted me?” We say
that labor has already enjoyed some of these rights and
we would like to define and constitutionalize these
rights which, as Commissioner Aquino has said, workers
have won through their struggles.

So I feel that we should not only be concerned with
brevity. It was the Commissioner himself who told me
one day that he had researched on the different Consti-
tutions and found out that not only India but many

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

other countries have expressed the provisions of their
Constitutions in the way that ordinary individuals
would be able to understand. When we say it should be
something that the public would be able to under-
stand, still this amendment is not something an ordinary
individual would be able to understand. One would have
to refer to law books, Labor Code and to the minutes
of this Constitution to find out just what are these
rights referred to. So, 1 believe we should not really
be concerned about making this section brief.

Romania’s Constitution had 105 Articles; Portugal’s,
29 pages and 143 Articles; Spain’s, 58 pages and 169
Articles; Sweden’s, 37 pages and 13 Chapters; Switzer-
land’s, 26 pages and 1 23 Articles and so had many other
countries’ constitutions. As a matter of fact, our Article
on Social Justice is quite short compared to the Article
on the Executive which has 1 1 pages and the Article
on the Judiciary which has more.

In the overriding concern about brevity and broad-
ness, we may overlook the sentiments that went into
the production of our work. So, we hope the Com-
missioner understands our feelings about cutting down
to size this important article for many workers.

MR. COLAYCO. It is a good thing the Commissioner
brought up my comments to her earlier because to be
honest with her, on my own, I undertook a little
research since I heard outside comments that this
particular article was rather lengthy. While I am not
saying that I do not share the Commissioner’s personal
views notwithstanding what I told her and Chairman
Nieva here who sounded that I had become almost a
traitor to her, I find this particular section like an over-
loaded small vehicle.

Anyway, now that I have heard the comments and
accepted the attitude of the Committee, may I make
one very unusual and special request. Madam President,
I hope that I will not be misunderstood here again. I
understand that there are 1 7 members in this Commit-
tee alone, so that they alone will be sufficient to throw
jue to Kingdom Come insofar as this amendment is
concerned. And I know, too, that like everyone else,
they would not have any trouble about showing where
their opinion lies. However, I feel that to afford a better
assurance of freedom of expression of their choice, I
would like to propose that the voting on my proposal
be by secret balloting.

the PRESIDENT. Does the Acting Floor Leader
have anything to say?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Madam President.

bishop BACANI. Madam President.

the president. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. Before we vote, let me just also
add these two notes: First, post factum after what we
have done in the provision on agrarian reform which is
also lengthy, to cut down this section on labor would
now make its place in the Constitution so dispro-
portionately small. Second, I am not a constitutional
lawyer myself, but it seems to me tliat the cardinal
rule in the making of a constitution should be its
responsiveness to the people. 1 do not know whether
we should follow a hard-and-fast rule regarding brevity
and conciseness. I thmk the principle here should be
rather the common good or the common welfare. And
it does not seem tliat the common welfare is better
served by making this already brief section briefer
still.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE president. Commissioner Lerum is recog-
nized.

MR. LERUM. May I be allowed to ask Commissioner
Colayco some questions? I understand that his purpose
in proposing this amendment is to condense the provi-
sion of tlie proposed section which appears on the left
of his proposal. Is that correct?

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. Madam President.

MR. LERUM. In other words, as far as the Commis-
sioner is concerned, he does not object to any provision
appearing on the left of his proposal, but his only
intention is to condense the same in just a few words.
Is that correct?

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct, I have no objection
to the substance.

MR. LERUM. So what is the use of a secret voting
now, just for the purpose of condensing?

MR. COLAYCO. No, I mean there may be members
of the Committee who may have their own opinion
about this different from the other members of the
Committee and the same with the rest of the Commis-
sioners here.

MR. LERUM. Does the Commissioner mean to tell
us that there are some Committee members who are
afraid to expose their vote?

MR. COLAYCO. No, I am not saying that.

MR. LERUM. And also some Members of the Com-
mission who are also afraid to express their vote in
public?

MR. COLAYCO. I am not saying that.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. LERUM. I am very blunt about this because I
want to be very clear about this portion. We are here
representing our own sectors, and it is only correct that
our sectors should know how we voted.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, before we
proceed to vote, may I ask Commissioner Colayco one
or two questions?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes may
proceed.

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog-
cognized.

MR. ROMULO. As an observation during our caucus,
if the body will recall, we did agree and approve that
where the Committee does not accept an amendment,
one may ask for a secret balloting.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Believing that the request of Commissioner Colayco is
meritorious, the Chair declares that such request is
granted and that the voting on this proposed amend-
ment will be done by ballot.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.

President, I am making a
recor at am against secret voting on this proposal.

president. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-

MR. DE LOS REYES. The amendment says; “THE
STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS
GRANTED BY THE LAW.” In other words, this refers
to existing laws and laws that may be enacted.

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Therefore, these laws could
also be repealed or amended. And if we amend these
laws, we will lose all these rights enumerated in Section
3 as proposed by the Committee.

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct. That is why my pro-
posal says: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL THE
RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW.

MR. DE LOS REYES. For example, there is a law
which allows the workers to strike or to engage in
concerted activities, then another law can be passed
to repeal those rights.

MR. COLAYCO. Not if this sentence is approved.

vote. Madam Presiden

tie y speak against the Colayco amendment?
pr<K^^ president. Commissioner Sarmiento m<

MR. SARMIENTO. This is from one who is not
member of the Committee on Social Justice.

Madam President, the classic formula in constitutio
mg is that a constitution should be clear, conci
an comprehensive. But that classic formula should n
A ^ dogma. Constitution-making should re
no” 1 times, to the clamor of tl

is that rights should be enumerat(
MoH and satisfaction. For instanc

iirharT* resident, I was with a group of workers ai

thev leamlri^tv. happy wh<

wis "

nate all these rightsTouW Jo

unhappy. That to Cm ’

Dogmas and foCulas\oul7°'‘ ^

the labors, the w^k of JusJke ^

also to consider the clamor the wishP^°V^ appeal to hi

me Wishes of our people.

Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Please distribute the baiiots.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Therefore, no law can be
passed which shall remove all these rights?

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct.

MR. DE LOS REYES. That will take a constitutional
amendment to remove or to take away from the
laborers all these enumerated rights.

MR. COLAYCO. That is correct.

MR. FOZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recog-
nized.

MR. FOZ. I would like to oppose the amendment,
and may I make a few statements in connection with
that.

The Colayco amendment would give primacy to
legislative enactments by saying that: “THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED
by THE LAW TO THE WORKERS.”

As a matter of fact, the amendment here even has
footnotes referring to the specific laws which the
provision or the amendment would like the rights
granted to be preserved. It bothers me because it would
seem that the existing laws regarding these rights of
labor might not at all be subject to repeal or even to

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

amendment. In other words, there is an element here in
the amendment that would make it difficult for Con-
gress even to change what is now provided in existing
laws.

If the Constitution would not specify the rights of
labor, tlien what is the use of such a provision? We
might as well have no provision at all and just depend
on Congress to provide whatever are or should be the
rights of labor.

I would like to remind my colleagues here that if we
approve these amendments as proposed, then we would
do away not only with paragraphs (b), (c) and (d),
but also with (a). This is an amendment by substitution
to the entire section on labor.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Do all Commissioners have copies
of the provisions of Section 3 as formulated by the
Committee and which are sought to be substituted by
Commissioner Colayco?

MR . ROMULO. Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Now in voting, may I request
some assistance from the members of the Committee.
What would they desire? Shall we vote separately for
each of the sentences or shall we just vote for the entire
substitution?

MS. NIEVA. I think it is the entire article.

MR. COLAYCO. It is the entire amendment. Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. The body will vote on the entire
amendment by substitution of Commissioner Colayco
which reads: “THE STATE SHALL PROTECT ALL
THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORK-
ERS PROMOTE MUTUAL COOPERATION BE-
TWEEN THEM AND THEIR EMPLOYERS BASED
ON SHARED RESPONSIBILITY, AND ENSURE
THEIR JUST SHARE IN THE FRUITS OF THEIR
LABOR ” If approved, it will substitute for Section 3,
paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Committee’s

draft.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam Chairman, if we are
for the amendment, we vote yes; and if we are against
the amendment, we vote no. Is that it?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, if the Commissioner is for
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Colayco,
put yes; if he is against, put no.

VOTING

this juncture, ballot forms were distributed to
the Commissioners. After the ballots were filled out,
the same were submitted to the Secretary-General.

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General says there
are 45 Commissioners in the session haU.

MR. LERUM. Madam President, if the Secretary-
General is looking for one ballot, I have it here and
my vote is no.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. We request the Com-
missioner to submit his ballot.

THE PRESIDENT. The results of the voting show 13
votes in favor and 31 against; the proposed Colayco
amendment is lost.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recog-
nized.

MR. ROMULO. We have not voted nor have we had
aniendments to Section 3 (c) and (d). We have registered
speakers here for amendments on (c) and (d). However,

I recall that before we took up this section on labor.
Commissioner Ople had reserved his right to propose
an amendment to Section 8. In view of the hour, I
wonder if the Committee would allow that we take
up that new section of Commissioner Ople; then after
lunch we go back to Section 3 .

May we hear from the Committee?

THE PRESIDENT. What is the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Ople?

MR. ROMULO. He is ready to present his amend-
ment to Section 8.

MR. OPLE. Am I recognized, Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. This is actually a proposed new state-
ment which probably can be another section imme-
diately following Section 8. The proponents besides
myself are: Commissioners Bennagen, de los Reyes,
Romulo and Bengzon. It probably can be called the
“industrialization statement” under agrarian reform
and will replace Section 9 which, by agreement, has
just been transposed to the Article on the National
Economy and Patrimony. It reads as follows: THE
STATE SHALL REDIRECT IDLE CAPITAL IN LAND
UNLOCKED THROUGH AGRARIAN REFORM TO-
WARDS ACCELERATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP-
MENT AND EMPLOYMENT CREATION. BONDS OR
OTHER FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ISSUED AS
PAYMENT FOR LANDS UNDER SECTION 5 OF
THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY
IN GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS OF THEIR
CHOICE.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

May I explain very briefly the principle behind this.
Agrarian reform has a tremendous synergy: (1) it can
liberate the tiller from the bondage of the soil; and
(2) it can accelerate industrialization and employment
expansion.

Accelerated mdustrialization is the other major
goal of agrarian reform in modem times. However,
landowners whose lands are expropriated find that after
losing their lands, the bonds issued to them as payment
by the government are next to useless. This new section
will ensure that these bonds are actually converted into
dynamic new capital for industrial growth and ex-
pansion of job opportunities.

And so, I ask that the Committee consider this pro-
posal, Madam President.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may we
request that copies of that proposal be distributed to
the Members of the Commission.

THE PRESIDENT. Have copies been distributed?

MR. BENGZON. Copies have been distributed yester-
day.

MR. SARMIENTO. We have no copies yet.

Secretariat to reproduce

the text of the amendment?

THE PRESIDENT. Shall we give the
to deliberate on this particular proposed

Committee time
amendment?

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, the Committee
would hke to ask some questions, in addition to the
observations made.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. BENGZON. Is it also the intention to allow that
these bonds, if bonds are indeed paid, be used for pay-
ment of taxes or loans from government corporations?

MR. OPLE. This is already an existing policy. How-
ever, am sorry to report that its implementation has
been extremely erratic.

MR. BENGZON So :c .u • x ^ xv

omonHmont ‘ j j- • ’ ^ mtentiou of tY

has already Uculater" *° Comniissiora

pos*fd ■ sfcton, bondrwh“hToi!Ilan ‘1'“

percent of the payment to a landowner''cove"red S"ant
reform (the remamder being cash) wUl be raised to t
more senous level as a negotiable instrument.

However, in the text of this proposed araendmen
what is given pnde of place is the role of this nev

capital that should be honored as equity or shares of
stock in government investments of their own choice.

MR. JAMIR. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog-
nized.

MR. JAMIR. May we request that we be furnished
copies of the proposal before any further interpella-
tions, so we can follow intelligently?

THE PRESIDENT. We have already instructed the
Secretariat to reproduce copies.

MR. OPLE. If the Committee so desires, we can wait
until the Secretariat delivers copies of the text. May I
point out that the Committee had been furnished copies
of this proposed amendment ahead of time. I hope the
Committee confirms this.

, MR. SUAREZ. Yes, the Committee itself had been
furnished copies of his proposal. Madam President,
but I doubt if the other Members had been furnished.

MR. OPLE. May I know the pleasure of the Acting
Floor Leader while waiting for the copies of the pro-
posed amendment? Would he like to propose some
other activity for the Commission?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, I propose that we have lunch.
Madam President.

MR. OPLE. I support the proposal, Madam President.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. In order to afford the Members ari
opportunity to go over the draft, the Chair suspends the
session for lunch. We will resume at 2:30 p.m.

It was 12:21 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:43 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

May we ask the honorable Chairman and members
of the Committee on Social Justice to please occupy the
front seats.

May we know from the Floor Leader if the Com-
mittee is now ready to react to the proposed amend-
ment of Commissioner Ople.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Ople be recognized.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President.

I think copies of this proposed amendment in its
latest permutation have already been circulated by the
Secretariat.

May I identify the proponents of this amendment:
Commissioners Rustico de los Reyes, Ricardo Roniulo,
Jose Bengzon, Ponciano Bennagen, Adolfo Azcuna,
Florenz Regalado, Christian Monsod and Regalado
Maambong.

The amendment reads as follows: SECTION 9. THE
STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LAND-
OWNERS TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM SO AS TO PRO-
MOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION, EMPLOYMENT
CREATION AND PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC
SECTOR ENTERPRISES. FINANCIAL INSTRU-
MENTS USED AS PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL
BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES
OF THEIR CHOICE.

This amendment may be denominated as the indus-
trialization provision of agrarian reform. I think it fills
a need in the Article on Social Justice in the sense that
industrialization is really the other major goal of
agrarian reform. And earlier on we talked about the
power of synergy mherent in agrarian reform and, for
that matter, social justice as a whole to liberate the tiller
from tlie bondage of the soil and also to release idle
private capital now locked in the antiquated land
system, so that it becomes available for industrialization
and employment expansion. We all know, those who
have taken a glance at the history of land reform in
Japan, Taiwan and Korea, that the economic miracles
that have taken place in tliose countries and have
compelled the admiration of the whole world, to a
large extent, were rooted in the earlier land reform
program pursued by their governments.

And so that is the reason for this proposed new
Section 9, Madam President. I would like to seek the
Committee s approval of this amendment as now

reworded.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President.

the president. The Committee may please pro-
ceed.

MR. BENGZON. The Committee accepts the amend-
ment.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, just a question
for clarification. What is the meaning of “PROCEEDS”
on line 3?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, “PROCEEDS” really
refer to the proceeds that the landowners will recover
through a just compensation program.

BISHOP BACANI. This is, therefore, the payment of
the land?

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President.

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I would like to
ask a few questions, for clarification in the record.

The Commissioner will remember tliat he invited me
to coauthor this proposal; and I said I like the objective
of the proposal, but I was sorry I could not affix my
signature because I wanted a clarification of the last
sentence which reads: “FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
ISSUED AS PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL BE
HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES
OF THEIR CHOICE.” When I read the sentence, I
immediately remembered the “Land Bonds” under the
Marcos regime. The landowners, from whom the land
was taken, were paid mostly in “Land Bonds,” redeem-
able after 20 years. Does this last sentence mean that
such kind of bonds come under the meaning of “FINAN-
CIAL INSTRUMENTS” issued as payment for lands?

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. But we already burned our fingers
with those “Land Bonds” during the Marcos regime.
Is there a difference between these financial instruments
provided for in this proposed section and the “Land
Bonds” issued during the Marcos regime as payment
for lands which were covered by land reform?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, financial instruments
do refef to bonds as a mode of payment for lands
covered by land reform. May I explain briefly that
under P.D. No. 27, which placed all com and rice lands
under land reform, the mode of payment is 10 percent
in cash and 90 percent in bonds. In Taiwan for rural
land reform only, it is 70 percent in bonds and 30 per-
cent in shares of stock in government corporations;
and for urban land reform, there is a stipulation, if I
remember right, of a 60-percent cash recovery for the
landowner.

The last sentence in this proposed amendment will
precisely correct the situation earlier complained of
by Commissioner Rodrigo.

MR. RODRIGO. Not only by me. Madam President.

MR. OPLE. Yes, by many thousands of landowners
who feel that they were gypped by the government.
After havmg surrendered their lands for cash bonds,
they later found out that the cash bonds did not have

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

the utility which they were made to believe they had.
For example, although I knew that there were circulars
sent to the government banks saying, “Please honor
Land Bank bonds as collaterals for loans”; or “Please
honor Land Bank bonds as offset payments for taxes
or for arrears that have been incurred in previous loans,”
most of the boards of directors of government financial
institutions did not honor those bonds, pleading as a
reason their financial straits in which they found them-
selves at the time.

So, the last sentence here supporting the principles
of the linkage between land reform and industrialization
in the first part seeks to mandate the State or Congress,
if we Uke, in the future to make sure that landowners
who will lose their lands to the tillers under this land
reform program will be given financial instruments in
payment for their lands, including bonds that will have
real utility. One way of giving more strategic develop-
ment values to such bonds is to insure right here that
these bonds will be honored as equity in public enter-
prises chosen by the landowners themselves.

May I give an example. There are not too many
^yemment corporations here making money now. In
^wan, it is the opposite situation because almost all
the government corporations are highly profitable. And
so, it is also profitable for landowners that have been
divested of their landholdings to put their bonds in
ese profitable corporations. But in our country there
are not too many of these. There are, however, some
T vehicles for investments. One example is the

n 3nk of the Philippines which in 1985, when most
anks did not make money, made more than P400
^ ion in net earnings. That is the right vehicle imme-
lately available for a bondholder, like Commissioner
8oc Rodrigo, who lost some of his lands in Bulacan
under P.D. No. 27.

MR. RODRIGO. All of my lands which were not
too big.

MR. OPLE. So this is one way of redressing that
admittedly deplorable and cavalier treatment given to
Land Bank bonds in the past.

MR. RODRIGO. Under this provision, is it possible
the implementing agency to repeat what
the Marcos regime did, to pay the landowners from
whom lands were taken ... 10 percent in cash and 90
percent in bonds?

\A is no such specific mandate,

Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. But it would not be a violation of
t IS section if the legislature or the implementing
agency so prescribes?

MR. OPLE. I think all the development planners
know that given the magnitude of the agrarian reform

that now has to be financed through Congress in tlie
coming years under the land reform provision of the
Article on Social Justice, the government cannot pay
in cash except partially for lands that will be acquired
by it for distribution.

MR. RODRIGO. The question has not been answered
categorically. My question is: Would it be a violation
of this provision in the proposed Section 9 if Congress
or the implementing agency again rules that lands taken
from landowners will be paid 10 percent in cash and
90 percent in bonds?

MR. OPLE. It would not.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may the Commit-
tee reply because we have accepted the amendment.

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, please.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod may pro-
ceed.

MR. MONSOD. If the payments or payment terms to
the landowners are similar to the previous program
where the transfer value was 40-60 percent of the face
value of the bonds, I think it has already been answered
by this Committee, Madam President, that that would
not constitute just compensation if that system were
repeated by Congress. So it is the intent of the Com-
mission to give this interpretation to the meanirig ot
just compensation. And the problem that arose, if we
will recall, was the question of the farmers’ affordability,
and the answer was that that is where the State should
probably step in to cover the difference between just
compensation and what the farmers can afford. So the
answer to the Commissioner’s question is that the terms,
as he described, would not constitute just com-
pensation.

This Article, if the Commissioner would notice, starts
with the words “SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES.
So there is a mandate to the Congress that the value of
the payments and the terms of conversion should be
such that there would be an incentive for the land-
owners to invest in these enterprises, and a conversion
value of 50 percent of the face value would not be an
incentive.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I am sorry but my
question has not been answered yet categorically- So
let me give a specific case. Let us say that the land of a
certain landowner is taken, under land reform. The
government determines its value and arrives at the
conclusion that the “just compensation” is PI 00 , 000 .
Would it be a violation of this proposed section if the
implementing agency tells the owner: “All right, I will
pay you only PI 0,000 in cash and P90,000 in bonds”?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, it would not be
just compensation if the terms of the bonds are such

FRIDAY, AUGUSTS, 1986

that the present value would not be equal to PI 00,000.
If the interest, for example, on the bonds is way below
the market rate of interest so that the present value of
the stream of payments under the bond issue would be
much lower than the balance of P90,000, it would not
constitute just compensation.

MR. RODRIGO. But it is possible to pay only 10
percent in cash and 90 percent in bonds regardless of
the interest on the bonds.

MR. MONSOD. That would be possible here because
I think when you pay full value, it can be in many
forms and combinations. It can be all in cash, it can be
payment terms over a period, but it must approximate
the present value that is given to the market price of
the land.

MR. RODRIGO. The sentence further reads:
“SHALL BE HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH EN-
TERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE.” Does the word
“ENTERPRISES” mean public enterprises, or does it
include private enterprises?

MR. MONSOD. I think this would have to be read in
connection with the first sentence where the phrase
“PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTER-
PRISES” appears because that is witliin the power of
the government to accept any exchange of the financial
instruments for equity shares of these corporations.

MR. RODRIGO. Public corporation.

MR. MONSOD. “PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES.”
In the case of private sector enterprises, I do not think
that the government has the power to direct or com-
mand private sector enterprises to accept the bonds as
exchanged. However, if the value of the bonds is such
that the present value reflects the real values, then it is
possible because then there would be no loss for private
enterprises to accept it in order to accelerate the broad
participation of co-ownership of their companies.

MR. RODRIGO, ta short, if the bonds are invested in
government corporations, it can be compulsory for a
government coiporation to accept these bonds if that
corporation is the choice of the landowner. Is that

right? If It IS a public corporation?

MR. MONSOD. That is right.

MR. RODRIGO. But, if it is a private corporation?

MR. MONSOD. It cannot be compulsory. In that
case, market forces will have to operate and that is
where the value of the bonds will be a consideration.

MR. RODRIGO. But, if the private enterprise opts to
accept, can it accept?

MR. MONSOD. That would be the operation of the
market.

MR. RODRIGO. In short, as regards to public cor-
poration it is compulsory to accept the bonds as equity;
but in regard to private corporation, it is optional. Is
that correct?

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. RODRIGO. But the problem is that I do not
know of any public or government corporation in the
Philippines which is making money, except perhaps the
Land Bank. But can the Land Bank accommodate all
the land bonds that will be issued for land reform?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, it is not exactly
correct to say that there are no public sector enter-
prises other than the Land Bank. By the way, there are
six banks and the other five, if I recall it correctly, are
all making money. ComBank is making money; Union
Bank is making money; then, of course. National Steel
Corporation is making money — it is going to make,
I think, over P500 million this year. There are several
companies that are profitable, although we read only
about the unprofitable ones.

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, I am not an economist but
I read about the billions upon billions of indebtedness
of the PNB and the DBP.

Thank you very much.

MR. BENGZON. The Committee reiterates its accept-
ance.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. The issue has been amply debated, but
Commissioners Colay co and Davide have some questions
before we take a vote.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colay co is recog-
nized.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President.

My question is addressed either to Commissioner
Ople or to the Committee. The proposal says “THE
STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES.” Will the
payment be mainly in the form of financial instru-
ments?

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. COLAYCO. Can the Committee spell out its
idea of what these incentives are going to be for the
guidance of Congress?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. MONSOD. Let me just give one example but
which is not exhaustive. This would be in the pricing
of the shares of the public sector enterprises, in the
terms of payment of the shares of these private firms.

MR. COLAYCO. I want figures. The bad experience
of Commissioner Rodrigo and others has shown that the
1 0-percent cash payment was just a drop in the bucket
of the price paid. Does the Committee intend to follow
the same percentage of cash payment?

MR. MONSOD. When we answered Commissioner
Rodrigo, we said that it is not really a question of
whether it is paid in cash or not. Even if it is paid only
10 percent in cash, the problem in the previous system
was that the balance of 90 percent was payable over a
long period of time at a very low interest rate, so that
the present value of that bond was way below the real
value of the property. Now, even if we have long-term
payment and its balance is in bonds, if the interest rate
on the bonds is such that the present market value of
the bonds equals the price of the land, it is possible to
exchange that in the free market, even in the private
sector, because then there will be a market for such
bonds. When the government unloads these public
sector enterprises, then it is possible, in addition to
gi^^g them the real value in terms of bonds, that the
pncing of the shares is such that it gives an incentive for
inem to buy those shares.

MR. COLAYCO. Does the Gentleman think that his
1 eas wm sufficiently guide the legislature to avoid past
mistakes?

owned or controlled corporations or banks, as the
case may be, this will be among the incentives for the
acceptance of these land bonds.

MR. BENGZON. It is not only among the incentives,
but it is the intent of the Committee in proposing this
section here, that that be one of the consequences.

MR. REGALADO. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. Madam President.

I seek enlightenment on some of the ramifications of
this proposed section. Would we now allow the land-
owner to negotiate the financial instruments, and for
the person to whom it is negotiated to avail of the
rights provided for under Section 9, or shall it be a
personal right?

MR. MONSOD. It is our understanding that bonds
or financial instruments representing proceeds under the
agrarian reform program would be negotiable instru-
ments.

MR. DAVIDE. And would the transferee or indorsee
of that financial instrument be allowed to exercise the
right under Section 9?

MONSOD. There are, I think, enough records of
Inis Commission which define just compensation.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you.

MR. REGALADO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

REGALADO. I had previously discussed tl
ma er with Commissioner Monsod, and I just want it
e on the record. With respect to the incentives that w

bonds, among oth
ment^nf acceptable for the pa

navmpnt lof* ° l^andowner concerned, and for t)
pay ent, let us say , of loans from government banks?

afflfi^ already articulated in tl

affirmative by Comniissioner Ople this morning, and v

reiterate that it is the intention of the Committee
be such.

A^R. REGALADO. In other words, whenever it is an
obligation in favor of the government or of any of its

MR. MONSOD. Yes, precisely because if we can
create a market for those bonds and financial instru-
ments, it would give incentives for more investments.

MR. DAVIDE. The second question is on public
sector enterprises: Will the reference of this be only
government-owned and controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries?

MR. MONSOD. Yes. That is the meaning in this
sentence, because the government would not have the
power to oblige private sector enterprises to accept
these bonds.

MR. DAVIDE. Even corporations exercising quasi-
public functions, like public utilities?

MR. MONSOD. That would then be a matter of
public policy on which enterprises would be privatized.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words. Section 9 will be
interpreted to mean that Congress will have the freedom
or the liberty to include quasi-public utilities or cor-
porations as one of the entities in which the landowner
may use as equity the financial instruments issued to
them in payment for the land.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. MONSOD. If that k within the context of the
privatization program of government, they would be
included.

MR. DA VIDE. With this particular section, we not
only institutionalize the bonds which were used in pay-
ment under the agrarian reform program, but also
enshrine the right of Congress to require payments for
lands taken under the agrarian reform program by way
of bonds. Could it exclusively be bonds?

MR. MONSOD. No. I think the reason why we used
the word “financial instruments” is that we did not
want to preempt the possible range of financial instru-
ments that could be issued under the agrarian reform
program.

MR. DAVIDE. So, financial instruments may include
any negotiable instrument for that matter — certificate
of indebtedness, promissory notes, and other instru-
ments.

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you.

thing? This appears to be a long provision. I think by
capturing the concept of coop.eration with private
enterprise and the goal, as well as the purpose for the
investment, could we rephrase it in some other way?

MR. MONSOD. Does the Commissioner have any
suggestions?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I do not know if this amend-
ment captures the meaning I wish to convey: THE
STATE IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR SHALL PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION
BY EMPLOYMENT CREATION AND PRIVATIZA-
TION OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. TOWARDS THIS
END, IT SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LAND-
OWNERS WHO INVEST PROCEEDS FROM AGRA-
RIAN REFORM BOND ON VITAL ENTERPRISER.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the second
sentence would convey the ideas we have here but the
first sentence sounds hke a general statement that
might belong in the Declaration of Principles and State
Policies or in the Article on the National Economy
and Patrimony. If we count the words, there are about
the same as in the original.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Ro-
sario Braid seeks to be recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, I with-
draw the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Just a clarificatory question.
Would “ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE” mean
that we give the landowners the freedom to choose from
all available enterprises or does the State suggest vital
enterprises?

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, what we mean is
within the number or ^e range of enterprises which
the government has decided would be privatized Then
the landowners or the holders of these instruments
make a choice from among those enterprises. It is not
the landowners who direct which public sector enter-
prises will be pnvatized.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. I would hke to ask a question of
my fellow member of our Committee.

This is meant to be an incentive. Now I would like to
ask a similar question to the one that I asked yesterday
regarding land reform. Supposing a landowner does not
want to take advantage of this incentive and then he
says, “I will not sell my land until you give me cash and
that is the only one that I will accept.” Will the land-
owners prevail or can they be forced to accept these
financial instruments other than cash?

tadustriauzation ia
the goal, sho we not qualify it by saying a VITAL

t^make free choices?

MR. M^NSOD. That might be an unnecessary ad-
jective ere ecause there are other sections in the
Constitution that define more clearly and in more
detail the areas or the manner by which the govern-
ment can get involved in hidustrialization. This would
not be the article for that definition.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Lastly, in the spirit of
brevity, could this not be shortened to mean the same

MR. MONSOD. During yesterday’s discussions, we
defined the agrarian reform program in terms of the
exercise of police power, because in this case there is a
higher level of objective and value than the landowner’s
option to hold on to the private property. In that case,
to refuse to participate or to allow the land to be part of
the agrarian reform program merely on the basis of the
fact that he wants all payments in cash probably would
not be allowed. However, the owner is entitled to ask
that the just compensation be really that.

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMrA. Commissioner Lerum seeks to b^. recog-
nized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Lerum is recog-
nized.

MR. LERUM. Madam President, I just want to ask a
few questions.

I agree with the purpose to the effect that it will
liberate the tiller from the bondage of the soil. That is
the first purpose. The second purpose is to release idle
capital locked up in the antiquated land system and
therefore accelerate industrialization and employment
expansion. I am just curious — what is this capital that
is locked up in this system? Will the sponsor kindly
explain this?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, there is a lot of poten-
tial capital locked up in a land system which does not
encourage productivity. For example, just to cull from
some of the most recent examples under P.D. No. 27,
there are many landed estates in rice and com that
were broken up, and so I am speaking of absentee
landowners. By the coverage of the land reform pro-
largely idle capital of the absentee landowner
which relies on the tenants’ efforts to generate pro-
uction, IS released in terms of the compensation
pven him. So that this gives him the opportunity to
ranstorm his role from an absentee landowner not
re y connected with the productive process, a virtual
parasite of society, into an entrepreneur or perhaps
even just as an investor. In the case of Taiwan, within
live years from the inauguration of its land reform
program, NT$2 billion was released to industry as a
result of the agrarian reform program which otherwise
would have been capital lying dormant in the land.

MR. LERUM. The Gentleman is referring to Taiwan,
but we are taking about the Philippines. Does this
locked-up capital refer to the payment that should
have been received by the landowner?

MR. OPLE. Yes, the proceeds of agrarian reform.

MR. LERUM. But according to the statement of the
Gentleman, the 90 percent which should have been

^^1,- ^ u in bonds is almost worthless, so where
IS this locked-up capital that we are talking about?

place, Commissioner Lerum
would hke to outlaw any reference to the experience
of a foreign country and I think that is less than
courteous, especially when one sits in a committee I
deplore that.

MR. LERUM. I am sorry if that is the impression
of the Gentleman, but I have to ask the question be-

cause in the proponent’s own explanatory statement,
the 90 percent that was paid in bonds is worthless. So,
I want to find out where this locked-up capital is.

MR. MONSOD. May the Committee answer. Madam
President?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. MONSOD. There are many ways to look at this,
but assets can either be in the form of land, bonds or
cash. Cash is the easiest to use in terms of investments.
When the agrarian reform program is implemented and
the landowner exchanges bonds for his land, the bond is
closer to liquidity than land. As we have stated before,
if it is in the form of bonds and it really constitutes
just compensation so that it bears the market rate of
interest, that becomes a highly liquid asset that can be
negotiated and, therefore, may be used as payment
for equity, thereby increasing investment in the country
in new or ongoing enterprises. I think that is the sense
in which locked-up capital is referred to. It is really
locked-up if it is not available for investments.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there has been suffi-
cient debate and discussion on the matter.

MR. LERUM. May I be allowed to reply?

MR. RAMA. May I ask that we take a vote.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Floor Leader, may we give a
chance to Mr. Lerum to reply if he is satisfied \vith the
response of Commissioner Monsod? Is Commissioner
Lerum satisfied with the explanation?

MR. LERUM. No; I have to make a reply, Madam
President.

Ordinarily that is so. But in the case of the bonds
paid by the government to the landowner, these are not
new capital but indebtedness to the landowner, so we
did not create any capital. My contention is that there
is no such Iqcked-up capital because the bond represents
indebtedness of the government to the owners of the
land which was given to the tillers of the soil. That is
my point.

MR. MONSOD. I am sorry, but I do not agree with
the Gentleman.

MR. LERUM. I am through. Madam President.

MR. MONSOD. When we talk about capital, we have
to distinguish between different types of assets. And
usually in economics when we talk about investment,
it is the creation of new productive enterprises or new
productive assets. What we are saying here is, that is
possible because then there would now be money avail-
able to finance new productive assets.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Maambong
have anything to say?

MR. MAAMBONG. Yes, Madam President. In fact,
I am one of the proponents of Section 9, but I would
like to present to the Committee a perfecting amend-
ment to delete the words “SO AS” after the word “PRO-
GRAM” in the third line so that it will read: “THE
STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LAND-
OWNERS TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE
INDUSTRIALIZATION.”

Would that be acceptable?

MR. MONSOD. We accept. Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may we now take a
vote on Section 9?

THE PRESIDENT. Does everybody have a copy of
this proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople and
several others?

MR. BENGZON. Everybody has a copy. Madam
President.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of the
proposed Section 9 of the Article on Social Justice,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

Those who are abstaining, please raise their hand.
(One Member raised his hand. )

MR. RODRIGO. Please register my abstention.

THE PRESIDENT. The results show 30 votes in favor,
none against, and 1 abstention; the amendment is
approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Section 3 of this
Article has not yet been fully amended. May I ask that
Commissioner Regalado be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. REGALADO. Thank you. Madam President.

My proposed amendment will be on Section 3, para-
graphs (c) and (d). With respect to paragraph (c), it is
more of a perfecting amendment on the last clause
which says: “and enforce mutual compliance thereof’
- I propose to change “thereof’ to THEREWITH,

because one complies with something and not of some-
thing.

THE PRESIDENT. May I have that again. Commis-
sioner Regalado? What line please?

MR. REGALADO. The fourth line of Section 3,
paragraph (c), page 2, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner proposes to
change the word “thereof’ to “THEREWITH.”

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that accepted?

MR. BENGZON. It is a matter of style, Madam
President; we accept.

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote on the amendment
first. Is there any objection to the proposed amend-
ment of Commissioner Regalado to change the word
“thereof’ to “THEREWITH.” (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. May we rnake a request from the
Floor Leader?

The principal author of this section, Commissioner
Aquino, had to be called outside on a long distance
call and we would like to wait for her. Can we defer
on the others and just proceed with Urban Land Reform
and Housing?

MR. REGALADO. This is Section 1 1?

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

MR. REGALADO. So, I will just defer my proposed
amendment to paragraph (d) of Section 3.

MR. MONSOD. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Foz be recognized to amend Section 1 1 .

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, before we go to the
amendments from the others, I would like to explain
some minor changes that we would like to propose on
Section 1 1 .

This is on the line that says: “a continuing urban
land USE and Housing program. “First of all, “Housing”
should be with a small h. And we would like to add the
phrase IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, and then, “will MAKE decent housing.”

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. FOZ. Madam President, our amendment will
also affect the same line.

MS. NIEVA. As Qiairperson of the Committee, may
I be allowed to continue?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MS. NIEVA. The rest of the sentence shall read:
“continuing urban land USE and housing program that
IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR
will MAKE decent housing”; and then here we add:
“AND SERVICES AVAILABLE at affordable cost to
deserving low-income citizens in urban centers and
resettlement areas."

The reason for this is that we realize the magnitude
of the housing problem in the country. We know that
at this stage, there is a nationwide backlog representing
just the households in slums and blighted areas esti-
mated at 992,000 households and these blighted areas
are 80 percent privately owned. Of these 992,000
squatter households, some 282,000 are in Metro Manila.
The studies have shown that these sites, in order to be
upgraded, will cost approximately P543 biUion, while
t e b^ance of the households will have to be resettled
m various government resettlement sites and this again
million. It is also estimated that every
home lots have to be developed over the

^ost approximately P460
milhon. This is just for Metro Manila where one-third of
the urban poor dwellers are located.

A similar situation is evident in the 1 9 major regional
urban centers outside Metro Manila for some 213,000
squatter households living in slum areas. An estimate
s owed that more than P3 billion will be needed to
up^ade these areas in the provinces. So, in view of this,
M we have supporting statistics here, we realize that
making decent housing and services
av able cannot be done by government solely. In fact,
we eel that the government’s main job is to make the
opportunities present and provide what they call new
approaches of sites and services and development of
improved infrastructure, leaving the matter of direct
ousmg opportunities to the private sector, which in-
cludes the people themselves, the different landowners,
an developers, financing institutions, and for them to
cooperate and work together to solve this problem that

of all urh*^n AP problem, but is the problem

of aU urban centers throughout the world.

DIN^TION '■’e phrase IN COOR-

maLT clrs ™E.'’R'''ATE SECTOR so as to
make it clear that our mtention here is not for the

government alone to be responsible fnr ^ a

+UV ‘'=i>PonsiDie tor answermg and

addressmg his very senous problem of our urban poor

dwellers m the country.

MR. RAMA. Commissioner Foz has the floor.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. We would like to propose an amendment
for the entire Section 1 1 in the form of an amendment
by substitution. Let me read the proposed amendment.
Madam President. It says: “The State shall ESTABLISH
AND IMPLEMENT AN URBAN LAND REFORM
PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE RENEWAL, DEVEL-
OPMENT AND MODERNIZATION OF HUMAN COM-
MUNITIES FOR THE COMMON GOOD. IT SHALL
PURSUE A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM TO MAKE
decent housing AND OTHER COMMUNITY SER-
VICES AVAILABLE TO deserving low-income citizens.”

First of all, the amendment seeks to reinstate the
word “REFORM” as part of the term “urban land
REFORM program.” The term “urban land use,’
Madam President, has a limited imphcation. Basically, it
has to do only with zoning function, and does not cover
the other components of an urban land reform program.
The usual components of an urban land reform program
are the following: First, to hberate human communities
from blight, congestions and hazards and to promote
their development and modernization; second, to bring
about the optimum use of land as a national resource
for public welfare rather than as a community of trade
subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use;
third, to provide equitable access to and opportunity
for die use and enjoyment of the fruits of the land,
fourth, to acquire such lands as are necessary to prevent
speculative buying of land for public welfare; and,
finally, to maintain and support a vigorous private
enterprise system responsive to community require-
ments in the use and development of urban lands. These
are the reasons why we propose the reinstatement of
the word “REFORM” to constitute urban land reform,
and not only use.

This amendment is being submitted not only by
yours truly but also in collaboration with Commis-
sioners Sarmiento, Trenas, Tan and Villegas.

As to the statement of Commissioner Nieva that the
provision of housing to low-income citizens should be in
collaboration with the private sectors, there is actually
no controversy about that. That is all very well under-
stood in this provision. Madam President. We would like
to hear the response of the Committee to the proposed
amendment.

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, there is some dis-
cussion here and a recommendation that we first take
the first proposal, the first amendment, changing the
term “urban land USE” to “urban land REFORM.”
We would like to throw this to the body because even
the Committee is divided on the choice of words.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Floor Leader, who is the first
in the list?

MR. FOZ. Madam President, I would like to make
clear that “urban land USE” is a very limited concept.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

It consists mainly of zoning. It does not involve provT
sion for housing and acquisition of land which may be
necessary for the government to implement its housing
program for the low-salaried citizens.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just have a
short reply?

If we look at the wording of the Committee, it is
“urban land USE and housing program.” Nonetheless,
we would hke to ask the judgment of tlie body on
whether we should use the word “USE” or “REFORM.”

MR. FOZ. May we add the information that the
present Constitution already provides for an urban land
reform program. So, if we use the word “USE,” we are
now backtracking. This is withdrawing from the
original concept now institutionalized in the present
Constitution.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, may we hear
from Commissioner Tan who is a member of the Com-
mittee and who proposed this particular section.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized.

SR. TAN. I really did not propose this particular
section. 1 was just in agreement with certain parts but
I welcome this section. The first part is the change of
the word “REFORM” from “USE” because land use
could be applied to anybody. While if we say “RE-
FORM,” it means to say that land has been used un-
justly, so, we are trying to reform. So, I welcome
“reform.” But as to the other two, I would suggest that
instead of simply saying “TO MAKE decent housing and
other community facilities available,” we say “TO make
decent housing AND BASIC COMMUNITY FACILI-
TIES OR SERVICES AVAILABLE.” One could have a
swimming pool, like what is in the BLISS projects, but
would not have the “basic”running water in the wash-
room. I consider the use of the term “low income” not
good, because “low income” is relative. An army soldier
could be in the low-income group as a squatter could
also be in that group. Perhaps a better word would be
UNDERPRIVILEGED; but I welcome the way this has
been revised.

Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Ville-
gas would like to comment on the same amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Could I just supplement the reason
why I think the word “REFORM” in “urban land
REFORM” should stay? I think it has to be clear that
we are giving the State the authority to expropriate
large urban tracts of land for redistribution to deserving
citizens in the spirit of agrarian reform. So, 1 think the

State cannot only expropriate large agricultural lands; it
can also expropriate large urban lands for the common
good.

MR. MONSOD. Yes.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 3:41 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:57 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the proponents have
reached a meeting of the minds. I ask that Commis-
sioner Foz be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. Madam’ President, after consultation with
the Committee, as well as with other Commissioners,
including Commissioners Trenas, Sarmiento, Tan, Rama,
Villegas and de los Reyes, we have come up with a com-
mon formulation on Section 1 1 , and which the Com-
mittee is accepting.

So, I would like to read for the benefit of the Com-
mittee the entire provision, as reworded or reformulated.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. FOZ. “The State shall BY LAW and for the com-
mon good undertake a continuing program OF urban
land REFORM and housing IN COORDINATION WITH
THE PRIVATE SECTOR that will MAKE decent
housing AND BASIC SERVICES AVAILABLE at
affordable cost to UNDERPRIVILEGED AND HOME-
LESS CITIZENS in urban centers and resettlement
areas.”

That is the amendment to Section 1 1 , Madam Pres-
ident.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, we are accept-
ing the suggestion of Commissioner Nolledo that instead
of “COORDINATION” we use the word COOPERA-
TION which better reflects the idea of the Committee -
“IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR.”

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I will explain.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

V MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I would like to be
recognized.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo is recog-
nized.

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to explain why I
suggested the word “COOPERATION” instead of
“COORDINATION.” When we coordinate, we talk
only of efforts. The word “COORDINATION” may
preclude investments. So, I recommended to the Com-
mittee that instead of “COORDINATION” we should
use the word “COOPERATION.” I think Commissioner
Foz will understand.

MR. FOZ. So, the Gentleman would exchange
“COORDINATION” for “COOPERATION”?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because I feel that “CO-
OPERATION” is a stronger term than “COORDINA-
TION.”

MR. FOZ. But is it not the other way around?
MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so.

MR. FOZ. Coordination is a stronger term than
cooperation, because with coordination there is in-
vovement of efforts and also money — funds, while
with cooperation, the private sector will just say,

we agree, but there is no involvement, no commit-
ment.

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so, because when we •
coor mate, we coordinate only efforts on the part of
either side. But when we use “COOPERATION,” then
cooperation may include investments, efforts and other
tactors. I would even recommend COLLABORATION
~ the original word that the Gentleman used.

MR. FOZ. Actually, the word “COORDINATION”
was suggested by the Committee.

MR. NOLLEDO. That is why I explained to the
Committee and the Committee accepted my suggestion.

MR. FOZ. In that case, we also accept, Madam
President.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Madam President.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I really feel I
ave o react to this watering down of this particular

°^8inal that the Committee pre-
“BY th t regulate.” But when we say,

fhA manHQtrt th legislation which removes

the mandate that ^ along we have wanted the urban
poor to enjoy as a form of social justice

ship, use and disposition of property and its increment”
is already stated in Section 1. Therefore, the general
rule affects all the sections on Social Justice. So it does
not dilute or diminish because the general rule is very
strong and is in the first section.

MR. FOZ. And in addition, the term “urban land
REFORM” involves the idea of regulation.

THE PRESIDENT. How does the section read now?

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Foz
will read the complete text.

MR. FOZ. The provision reads as follows: “The
State shall BY LAW and for the common good under-
take a continuing program of urban land REFORM
and housing IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR that will MAKE decent housing AND BASIC
SERVICES AVAILABLE at affordable cost to UNDER-
PRIVILEGED AND HOMELESS citizens in urban
centers and resettlement areas.”

MR. RAMA. Madam President, before we vote, I
would like to explain briefly why I asked that the word
“deserving” be deleted and that instead we add me
words “HOMELESS citizens” after “UNDERPRI-
VILEGED AND,” the reason being that there are under-
privileged citizens that have homes by inheritance.
Our main concern here are the homeless citizens w o
live on the sidewalks, on top of garbage dumps an m
shacks. So, that is the explanation why I ^

words “AND HOMELESS citizens.” May I ask tnar
we now take a vote. Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT. Just to clarify: we also have the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Trenas.

MR. TRENAS. Madam President, we have incor-
porated all our ideas.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of this particular
amendment on Section 11, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)

Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)

The results show 35 votes in favor and 2 against; the
amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized,
answer our colleague because the reason we agreed to

the removal of the words “regulate the ownership” MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento

that the general rule on “regulation, acquisition, owner- be recognized to amend Section 1 2 .

FRIDAY, AUGUSTS, 1986

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, my amend-
ment is an amendment by deletion. May I propose

* that we delete the words “with valid claims” after
“dwellers”?

MS. NIEVA. We have taken that out.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, that has been
taken out.

MR. BENGZON. We have taken that out.

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. We also deleted the words “due pro-
cess,” and instead we use “IN ACCORDANCE WITH
law.”

MR. SARMIENTO. Will Commissioner Nieva kindly
repeat that.

MS. NIEVA. Line 3 reads as follows: “Urban poor
dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH law
AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER.”
But I think we have not yet finished it.

MR. SARMIENTO. May I be clarified on why we
removed the words “due process” and replaced these
with the word “LAW” instead?

MR. BENGZON. It is a redundancy. If it is in accord-
ance with law, it means to say it is with due process.

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you.

My other amendment on Section 1 2 is for the reten-
tion of the lines originally deleted by the Committee,
and these are the words “and their involvement in its
planning and implementation.”

Madam President, I conferred with a group of urban
poor and they asked that these lines be retained because
they wanted to participate not only in the planning but
also in the implementation. These two lines, they said,
are crucial lines which ought to be retained.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. BENGZON. Will the Commissioner kindly repeat
that?

MR. SARMIENTO. My suggestion, Madam President,
is for the retention of the lines “and their involvement
in its planning and implementation” because this
resettlement will definitely affect the urban poor
numbering more than one million in Metro Manila. So
they are suggesting — and I hope the Committee will
accept this proposal — that we retain the words, “and
their involvement in its planning and implementation.”

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, the reason that
was deleted is that there is already that understanding
when we inserted the word “consultation.”

MR. SARMIENTO. But for clarity — and what are
two lines among friends — I propose that we retain
these. After all, this was the original proposal of the
Committee for the inclusion of these two lines. May
I suggest, therefore, that we retain the same.

MR. BENGZON. The situation we are really trying
to avoid is that, if after all the planning which is done
by the government in consultation with these people,
they ultimately refuse to be resettled, then everything
will have gone to waste. After all, this phrase is already
covered in the word “consultation.”

MR. SARMIENTO. Anyway, if the real intent of the
Committee is for that consultation to cover their
involvement in planning and implementation, then I
withdraw my amendment.

MR. BENGZON. Thank you very much.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog-
nized.

MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.

May I inquire from the Committee whether the
words here, “urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted,”
refer to the squatters?

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO. Under existing law, squatters are
perse illegally occupying the land.

MR. BENGZON. That is why we say, “IN ACCOR-
DANCE WITH LAW,” because if he is a squatter, under
the law, he is a nuisance per se.

MR. DE CASTRO. Yes.

MR. BENGZON. He can be evicted because of the
very fact that he is a nuisance per se, which is in accord-
ance with law. However, the eviction will have to be in
a just and humane manner, not in the manner by which,
for example, the squatters in the Tatalon Estate were
evicted or were attempted to be evicted.

MR. DE CASTRO. I will agree on the use of “JUST
AND HUMANE MANNER.” But when we say that they
cannot be evicted nor their dwellings demolished except
in accordance with law would that force the poor owner
of the land being squatted on to go to court to evict
them?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. BENGZON. That is why I say that if the illegal determine whether he is a professional squatter or

squatters are a nuisance per se, an eviction, without just a mere squatter? We are constitutionalizing squat-

going to court, would be in accordance with law.

MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. So, the owner of the land on
which they are squatting will have to go to court to
evict them. Is that right under this provision?

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

MR. DE CASTRO. Suppose the poor owner does not
have the means to go to court because litigation is costly,
will he then have to hve with the situation that what he
owns he does not have? With the statement “urban
poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MAN-
NER,” we are forcing the owner of the land to go to
court, in accordance with law for the eviction. If the
owner has no money because court litigation is quite
expensive, then we are liable to have a small landowner
ending up without any land at all.

MR- BENGZON. Madam President, may we request
Commissioner Regalado to explain this.

MR. REGALADO. Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. REGALADO. As we were saying, a professional
squatter with no valid claim whatsoever can be con-
si ered a nuisance per se. And in the abatement of a
nuisance per se as distinguished from a nuisance per
uccidens, the owner does not have to go to court. He
can report to the municipal authorities or to the health
authorities or he can seek the aid of the police author-
ities. If, on the other hand, it is a nuisance per accidens
which requires a determination of facts, then that will
be the time when judicial recourse will be necessary,
^so, the owner himself, under the law on property,
is entitled to use a reasonable cost in defense of his
property, whenever there is a clear, patent infringement
upon his property rights. Now, this does not compel
the owner to go to court. If it is a nuisance per se, all
he has to do is to seek the help of the local authorities.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, may I make
some remarks on Commissioner Regalado’s remarks.

Commissioner Regalado speaks of professional
squatters, who are to him a nuisance per se. When he
^ds a squatter, that is a nuisance per accidens to him.
Now, how can we determine whether or not he is a
professional squatter? In the first place, when we see
a man squatting on our property, it is illegal per se
from the very beginning. What about in the city where
somebody occupies your land which measures up to
250, 300 or 350 square meters? How can the owner

ting. I will really agree on a humane and Just manner
of evicting them, but to require the owner of that land
to go to court so that he can comply in accordance
with law, will be too much punishment for the poor
owner who is perhaps as poor as the squatter himself.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, to begin with,
even at this moment or even without this particular
paragraph, one cannot get a squatter out unless one
sues him in court, unless, as we said, the squatter is a
nuisance per se. And if he is a nuisance per se or a
professional squatter, the landowner does not have to
go to court, as explained by Commissioner Regalado.

MR. DE CASTRO. That is my main difficulty.

MR. BENGZON. That depends already upon the
facts of the case. We cannot put all of those exceptions
and explanations in here, except the ones that are m
the Journal.

MR. DE CASTRO. I would then make an amendment
by deleting the first sentence of Section 1 2 because
we are constitutionalizing squatting in this Constitu
tion.

MR. BENGZON. Would the Gentleman propose his
amendment then so that we can act on it?

MR. DE CASTRO. I suggest that the foUowing first
sentence of Section 12 be deleted: “Urban

dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
molished EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH law
AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANN
the reason being that we are constitutionalizing ®
squatting whether it is professional squatters or J
mere squatters. We have no reason to constitutioim ize
what is nuisance per se or what is nuisance per acciaen

MR. BROCKA. Madam President, may I recog
nized?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Brocka is recog-
nized.

MR. BROCKA. I would like to make a comment
on Commissioner de Castro’s comments on this. We
are not out to find out, I think, in this particular section
whether or not they are illegal or professional squatters.
This particular section is premised on the fact that they
are human beings and should be protected by law. They
should not be driven away like animals, in the way the
demolition of shanties was done in the past wherein a
group of army or military or security guards would
just come, without due process of law. In certain cases,
some people have been killed . An example has already
been cited in the case of the Tatalon Estate.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

The particular section is premised on the fact that
squatters, whether they are there illegally or not,
whether they are professionals or not, are human
beings. It is not their fault that they are poor. Under
the law, they should be protected. That particular
protection is what we are asking under this section on
social justice.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, it has been
accepted by the Committee that when we talk of urban
poor dwellers, we refer to squatters. I do not say that
they are animals; neither do I say that they should be
driven like such. But what I am questioning. Madam
President, is why we are constitutionaUzing squatting.
So, I do recommend that the first sentence in Section
12 be deleted.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept the
amendment by deletion?

MS. NIEVA. No, the Committee does not accept.
Madam President.

VOTING

MR. RAMA. May we take a vote on this?

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of the proposed
amendment of Commissioner de Castro to delete the
first sentence of Section 12, please raise their hand.
( One Member raised his hand.)

Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Mem-
bers raised their hand.)

The results show 1 vote in favor and 30 against; the
amendment is lost.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, before going to
Section 11 or 12 in the draft, may I be allowed to go
back to Section 1 1 after the Foz amendment. With
the permission of the Commission, we failed to answer
a basic demand and a basic right for the urban poor
dwellers and resettlement dwellers.

I seek to add, after the Foz amendment, the follow-
ing sentence with the permission of the Commission;
IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EMPLOY-
MENT OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCH CITIZENS. This
is an amendment jointly proposed by Commissioners
Nolledo, Sarmiento, Foz, Bennagen and Tan. Perhaps,
in the euphoria of our desire to answer the needs of
the urban poor dwellers, we forgot one very important
and significant assistance which we should give to them.

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, the original committee
report carried the phrase “employment-generating
economic activity.” Yes, that is very important.

MR. DAVIDE. Would the Committee willingly
accept this amendment?

MS. NIEVA. We are accepting that amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Commissioner please
repeat the amendment.

MR. DAVIDE. It is to place a new sentence after
the Foz amendment: IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO
SUCH CITIZENS. Commissioners Foz, Sarmiento,
Nolledo, Tan and Bennagen are coauthors.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment which has been accepted by
the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.

MR. DAVIDE. On Section 1 2 of the proposed draft,

I am constrained to present this amendment because my
past is haunting me. I come from a very poor rural com-
munity. But at the start of Section 1 2, we only speak of
the urban poor dwellers. So, I seek to insert between
“urban” and “poor” the words AND RURAL.

MR. BENNAGEN. May we ask the proponent what
to include under the category of “rural poor”?

MR. DAVIDE. The same as the “rural poor” referred
to in the phrase “No resettlement of URBAN OR
RURAL DWELLERS” appearing in the second sentence.
These are the rural poor.

MR. BENNAGEN. Would these include also rural
communities that are threatened by huge infrastructure
projects?

MR. DAVIDE. Certainly.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

MS. NIEVA. The Committee gladly accepts the

amendment.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to the pro-
posed amendment which has been accepted by the
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend-
ment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Regalado be recognized.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. REGALADO. Thank you, Madam President.

Still on Section 12 of the draft proposal: we have a
little difficulty in the conception of urban poor dwellers.
I, therefore, propose an amendment to read UNDER-
PRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS because when we
speak of poor or poverty, it is generally conceived in
terms of their financial capacity. But financial capacity
alone is not the only consideration. There may be other
factors to consider in classifying an underprivileged
urban dweller. So, in heu of “urban poor dwellers”
and to have a broader scope which will include the poor,
I propose that we use the phrase UNDERPRIVILEGED
URBAN DWELLERS to make it a little more encom-
passing.

MR. FOZ. The term “urban poor” is mentioned not
only in the 1973 Constitution but in volumes and
volumes of books on real estate development. It is an
accepted term even among developers all over the world.
So, I think we should stick to the term “urban poor.”

MR. REGALADO. Provided, however, that it means
not only the financial but also other aspects of life
where they are underprivileged or at a disadvantage,
and provided that the Committee will accept it.

MS. NIEVA. Yes.

MR. REGALADO. I will yield to the use of the words
“urban poor.”

MR. BENGZON. With that understanding. Madam
President.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. The Honorable Regalado did not read
accepted amendment. It should read:
URBAN AND RURAL POOR DWELLERS.

^ after the change
ot the word from “poor” to UNDERPRIVILEGED for
e reasons I have given, and the word is more encom-

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-
nized.

MR. SARMIENTO. May I just be allowed to make a
comment on the proposed amendment? When we speak
o urban poor dwellers, we speak of those who are
inancially poor and deprived of basic necessities. So,

pptvtt cover the word “UNDER-

• T u ’ ^i^ce “urban poor” has achieved a
meanmg. t has been used for years, for decades. So, if

“UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN
Fvpn tv>o ’ 'vould be creating confusion.

present Constitution speaks of “urban poor.”

speafoflnd*iri“ged ° T

includes the poor. Now ,h, ''

poor” is used in the 1973 ConsuStirf^'n “tban

In OQV that it u j 'constitution does not mean
to say that it has had an inflexible and rigid juris-
prudential meanmg. I want it ^ \u

• 4 . 4 .U f -1 II expanded to more than

just the financial capacity of a person.

MR. FOZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized

MR. REGALADO. With regard to the third line

which says, “EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND ALWAYS,” I propose the deletion of the word
“ALWAYS” because it is redundant. The Ime

already says “EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER.”

MS. NIEVA. We accept. Madam President.

MR. BENGZON. We accept.

MR. REGALADO. On the fifth line, I Propof® ^

insert THEM AND between the words “with” and tne
and after “communities,” add WHERE THEY A so
that the amended portion will now read : or

dwellers shall take place without consultation wi
THEM AND the communities WHERE THEY ARE
to be relocated.” We will give the communities where
they are going to be transferred a say on whether or no
they should be placed in that particular commuriity. n
other words, we provide a dual consultation wit e
community and with the urban poor in their own
munity. Also, this will provide a chance for the o er
community to which they are going to be relocate o
explain whether their resources or their situation wou
accommodate so many in the resettlement areas.

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, does “THEM” refer
to entire communities, because here we have in mind
entire communities that have to be relocated and
resettled because of infrastructure projects like dams?

MR. REGALADO. "No. The use of the pronoun
“them” has for its antecedent the urban or rural
dwellers. There must be prior consultation, of course,
with the urban and rural dwellers. So the word “them”
has reference to the urban or rural dwellers who are
going to be relocated. The second addition is also a
consultation with the community to which they are
going to be relocated. So, it is not just the government

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

saying, “We will transfer you here,” without giving that
other community where they are intended to be relo-
cated the opportunity also to say, “Well, this is our
present situation. We have these problems ourselves.”

They may not have enough arrangements for giving
employment as has already been adopted in the amend-
ment of Commissioner Davide. So, at least there should
be a consultation with the community where the
settlers are going to be.^relocated, aside from the con-
sultation with those who are going to be recolated.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Would the proponent yield to one
question?

MR. REGALADO. Yes, gladly.

MR. DAVIDE. What if the community to which they
will be relocated rejects? Would it mean the failure of
the resettlement plan or program?

MR. REGALADO. No. The word we used here is
only “consultation.” They cannot reject or override a
governmental policy, but at least that community can
prepare to accept these people or to ventilate also the
possible problems, because being members and resi-
dents of that community, they are also in a position
to inform the authorities why it would not be advisable.
If, however, the authorities insist, then it is only a
question of consultation.

MR. DAVIDE. So just for the record, it is not really
a right granted to the communities to where they will
be relocated.

MR. REGALADO. No.

MR. DAVIDE. If the other community will reject,
the government can still insist.

MR. REGALADO. Yes, because the word used here
is “consultation” only. The government can also learn
from those who have been living in those areas for years
and who know what the possible situation would be, if
these urban poor are transferred to those communities.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. BENGZON. Will the Commissioner read the
proposal again?

MR. REGALADO. In other words, this last sentence
would be: “No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers
shall take place without consultation with THEM AND
the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be relocated.”

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, just one more
point.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG. In tlie original formulation, it is
my understanding that the one to be consulted is the
communities where the urban or rural dwellers are. With
this amendment, tlie communities to be consulted are
the communities where they are to be relocated. Is that
correct?

MR. REGALADO. No, there will be dual con-
sultation.

MR. MAAMBONG. Both?

MR. REGALADO. Both.

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. May I ask the proponent one
clarificatory question as to the meaning of “con-
sultation”? I ask this because in our experience, the
government makes claims to consultation but it merely
goes through the motion of consultation. We would
like to envision here a consultation that would provide
tlie communities adequate information on who are the
relocatees and where they will be going.

MR REGALADO. The word “consultation” was

oposed by the Committee, so it is for the Committee
to ^ve its own interpretation as to the extent, the
scope, the effect, the means and the modes of con-
sultation.

MR BENNAGEN. I mentioned that because we feel
that consultation should be qualified in terms of making
adequate information available to those who are con-
cerned so that decisions are made on the basis of the
best available information.

MR. REGALADO. Yes.

MR BENNAGEN. That is the meaning we have here,

MR. REGALADO. Yes, as the Committee originally
intended the word “consultation” to mean.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. BENGZON. Will the Gentleman read the amend-
ment again, please?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. REGALADO. The last sentence of Section 12
will read; “No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers
shall take place without consultation with THEM
AND /the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be
relocated.”

MS. NIEVA. We accept the amendment, Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. What happens to the last phrase?

MS. NIEVA. The last phrase — “and their involve-
ment in its planning and implementation” — was already
eliminated.

THE PRESIDENT. That was eliminated already.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-
nized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Before we put the matter to a
vote, will the proponent yield to an amendment as a
consequence of the Davide amendment? So, the
senteiKe will read: “No resettlement of urban AND
mra R dwellers. . .” This is in consonance with line

MR. REGALADO. The amendment is accepted.

MR. BENNAGEN. May I just say something?
nize^^ president. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, we go back to
the same problem because if we say SUCH, we are
referring to “urban and rural poor dwellers.” So, I think
we should retain “urban and rural dwellers.”

MR. MAAMBONG. I agree.

MS. NIEVA. Madam President, we retain the original
phraseology.

THE PRESIDENT. So, what we have now is the
Regalado amendment.

Is there any objection to the amendment of Com-
missioner Regalado? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no rnore
registered proponents of amendments to this provision,
so may I ask that we take a vote on the whole provision.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Chairman now read
Section 12.

MS. NIEVA. Section 12 now reads as follows: ‘Ur-
ban and rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor
their dwellings demolished except in accordance with
law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement
of urban and rural dwellers shall take place without
adequate consultation with them and with the com-
munities where they are to be relocated.”

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to tWs
Section 1 2 as read by the honorable Chairman of the
Committee on Social Justice?

EENNAGEN. We may not have to qualify rural
dwellers with the adjective “POOR” because in cases

^ ^ massive relocation, like relocations

ugh about by construction of dams, even those
who are not really rural poor are included.

MR. SARMIENTO. With that explanation, I with-
draw my amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. I heard the Committee Chairman
reading “urban and rural dwellers.” It should be or-

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, just for ven-
fication. Do the records show the words ‘‘without
consultation” or “without adequate consultation”?

reco^ized*^^^*^^^^' ^°"^"^issioner Maambong is THE PRESIDENT. “Without adequate consultation.

MR. MAAMBONG. To avr.m
word “urban” or “rural ” will r 5®Pehtion of tl
accept an amendment to hi<! Regalai

read; “No resettlement OF SUol^J
eliminate the words “urban or rural” and' tasert SUC

MR. REGALADO. That amendment is accepted i
sofar as I am concerned but that is the wording of t
Committee so I think they should be consulted.

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (One
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 34 votes in favor, 1 against and
no abstention; Section 12 is approved.

FRIDAY, AUGUSTS, 1986

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Nolledo be recognized to amend Section 13
which is now Section 1 2 under the subtitle “health.”

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. What is the pleasure of Commis-
sioner Monsod?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. MONSOD. We had deferred considering the last
two paragraphs of the section on labor. Since Commis-
sioner Aquino is back, may we go back there, with the
indulgence of Commissioner Nolledo?

Madam President, may we have a suspension of the
session to organize ourselves?

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 4:37 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:14 p.m., the session was resumed with the
Honorable Regalado Maambong presiding.

It shall guarantee the rights of ALL workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
peaceful and concerted activities including the right to
strike in ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEY SHALL
BE ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE, just and
humane conditions of work, A LIVING WAGE, and TO
PARTICIPATE IN the pohcy and decision-making
PROCESSES affectmg their rights and benefits AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

The State shall promote THE PRINCIPLE OF
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN WORKERS
AND EMPLOYERS IN settUng THEIR disputes
THROUGH THE USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES,
INCLUDING CONCILIATION, AND THE ENFORCE-
MENT OF THEIR MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THERE-
WITH.

THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS BE-
TWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, RECOG-
NIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just
share and the right of BUSINESS ENTERPRISES to
reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND
GROWTH.”

This reformulation took off basically from what we
had voted upon in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section
3, and we have incorporated the proposed amendments
of Commissioners Azcuna, Foz, Colayco, Regalado and
the Committee.

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
session is resumed.

Mr. Floor Leader, will you kindly indicate where we
are now.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a request
from the Committee that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer, by now the
body should have been furnished with copies of the re-
formulated section on labor, pertaining to Section
3. May I be aUowed to read it while we are waiting for
the xerox copies?

the presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). The

Commissioner may proceed.

MS. AQUINO^ The reformulation would account fc
a reformatting by way of completing the paragrapi
instead of mere enumerations, and some transposition
which would best define the concepts.

Section 3 reads: “The State shall afford EVERY
protection to labor and promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. REGALADO. Before the suspension of the ses-
sion, I was on this last paragraph where I was supposed
to introduce an amendment, but we had to wait for the
reformulation. With respect to this last paragraph, on
the third sentence thereof, I am proposing an amend-
ment by insertion of the word EQUIVALENT between
the words “the” and “right” to read; “share and the
equivalent right of business enterprises to reasonable
returns.”

The reason for this is that the original draft stated
the corresponding rights, which are very vague and
ambiguous. Then I noticed that the word “correspond-
ing” was eliminated and that the words “the right”
were simply put. In the case of labor, it is stated that it
must be “RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of
labor to its just share. To put this on an equipoise,
since all persons should be equal before the law, I pro-
pose this amendment: “and the EQUIVALENT right
of business enterprises to reasonable returns on invest-
ments . . .”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Before the Committee responds, we would like to know
from Commissioner Aquino if there is a reformulation
of paragraphs (c) and (d) because I think Commissioner
Regalado is now proposing to amend paragraph (d).

100

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. There is a
reformulation of the two paragraphs.

MR. REGALADO. I am using the reformulated draft
as furnished me.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is it
the reformulated draft he is using now?

REV. RIGOS. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Rigos is recognized.

REV. RIGOS. Do I understand that the word
“FOREMOST” here refers to the right of labor to its
just share or also to the right of business enterprises?

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. But there
are some minor corrections. The omission of the word
“corresponding” was not intended; it must have been a
typographical error.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we
be furnished a copy? We are just guessing here.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Even
the Chair is waiting for its copy. In the meantime, may
we just proceed. Commissioner Regalado?

MR. REGALADO. Yes. Since Commissioner Aquino
said that the word ‘corresponding” should have been
there,^ I am proposing the change to “EQUIVALENT
right because corresponding right” is very vague;
there can be no corresponding right of capital, shaU we
^nim/A^T labor. So, I am proposing “the

Si capital Lo to

equal ^ growth potential. Equivalent does not mean

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
the Committee respond?

MS. AQUINO. If the Gentleman would read the para-
graph, when we say that the State shall regulate, the
reference to the “FOREMOST” right means that the
guiding or the polar star in the regulation of the State
regarding the relationship between workers and em-
ployers is the primacy of labor.

REV. RIGOS. Probably a comma (, ) should be
inserted after “share” to make it clear that “FORE-
MOST” is intended to refer to the right of labor to its
just share.

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we accept
the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Floor Leader is recognized.

presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. The understanding then is that the
meaning is not equal. We prefer the word “correspon-
mg, I believe, because we do not wish to speak
equality here nor we do not deny equality,
it • ^ compare an orange to an apple, and say

IS equal to an apple. As you can see, the terms are
rioht^^^f etely parallel. We are vindicating almost the
thp share and what is said regarding

nn inx ^'^siness enterprises is to reasonable returns
snpatin^ ments, expansion and growth. So we are not

whv completely equivalent things. That is

why we used the word “corresponding.”

doM^of ^ “equivalent’'

pertaining to diSenT^l^t equalize rights

spending’^ is'amfieTol"^^^^^^^^^

“corresponding lights”? ^

THE PRESIDING OFFICER iMr lu u ^ i

the Committee accepting th^Umen

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there is anot er
amendment to the same subsection. May I usk tha
Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Just
a moment, Mr. Floor Leader. There is a pending ^O"
posed amendment of Commissioner Regalado. i
Commissioner Regalado rephrase the amendment so
that the body will know?

MR. REGALADO. The entire paragraph will read:

“THE STATE shall regulate the RELAT^NS
BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, RECOG-
NIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just
share, and the EQUIVALENT right of BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns on investments,
EXPANSION AND GROWTH.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
proposed amendment is to change the word “corre-
sponding” to “EQUIVALENT”?

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DA VIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS AQUINO^ Mr. Presiding Officer, we would rather
submit it to the body for a decision. '

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

101

MR. DAVIDE. I would like to propose an amend-
ment to the proposed amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Gentleman may proceed.

MR. DAVIDE. On the second line, instead of “labor”
it should be WORKERS; that is, “the right of WORK-
ERS,” then change “its” to THEIR. On the third line,
change “business enterprises” to EMPLOYERS. So, the
provision will now read: “THE STATE shall regulate
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EM-
PLOYERS, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right
of WORKERS to 'THEIR just share and the right of
EMPLOYERS to reasonable returns . . .”

MR. REGALADO. I accept the amendment, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee
prefers the retention of the word “labor” because of its
positive connotation of a capability for force. Besides,
it is a generally accepted and settled usage in labor and
management relations that you would refer to workers
as “labor.”

MR. DAVIDE. This is just to harmonize it with the
first line. We speak of the relations between workers
and employers. It did not speak of the relations between
labor and capital.

MR. REGALADO. Mr.* Presiding Officer, likewise in
the preceding paragraph, it also speaks of workers and
employers.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. There might be a problem of con-
ceptual symmetry here. When we say “reasonable
returns on investments, EXPANSION AND GROWTH,”
we usually refer to business enterprises, not to em-
ployers.

MR. DAVIDE. What about, say, a single proprietor-
ship? We do not consider it as a business enterprise; so,
it is an individual employer.

^ could be included, Mr. Presiding
Officer. It may be a generic reference to all kinds of
businesses.

MR. DAVIDE. If the idea is to harmonize the con-
cept, it should be relations between labor and capital.
The first sentence should read: “THE STATE shall

regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LABOR AND
CAPITAL, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of
labor to its just share and the right of BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns.”

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee
insists on the retention of the phrase “BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES” because “employers” or “capital” has
its connotation with reference to money and . . .

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. REGALADO. On the matter of using the term
“business enterprises,” I am envisioning, for instance,
the situation of a sectarian school like the school I
am connected with. It is not considered a business
enterprise because it is a corporation solely run by the
Benedictine community. Yet, they are employers and,
in determining the right of labor, do we not also have
to take into account the reasonable returns on invest-
ments, expansion and growth of that academic com-
munity? Otherwise, they will be out of the concept
of “business enterprises,” because they are not primarily
designed for business. So, I think the generic terms of
“employers” and “employees, as used in the opening
line of that last paragraph and in the next preceding
paragraph, do not make only for a symmetrical
formulation; they are broad enough to cover the rela-
tions between the so-called labor and the so-called
capital. So, we use the word “employers” because they
are not necessarily capital-or revenue-or profit-oriented.

MR. AZCUNA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Azcuna is recognized.

MR. AZCUNA. Would Commissioner Regalado
accept PRIVATE ENTERPRISE instead of “employers”
so that the provision will read; “AND THE CORRE-
SPONDING OR EQUIVALENT RIGHT OF PRIVATE
enterprise to reasonable returns on investments
EXPANSION AND GROWTH.”

MR. REGALADO. Firstly, that was a proposed
amendment to my amendment by Commissioner
Rodrigo. I think the question should be addressed to
him. I just followed it up for purposes of symmetry.

MR. AZCUNA. I see. What does Commissioner
Davide say?

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment is accepted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
the Committee react now to this present formulation
because there seems to be an acceptance of Commis-

102

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

sioner Davide to the word suggested by Commissioner
Azcuna?

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer, if we use
“PRIVATE ENTERPRISE,” how about government
enterprises? Are they employers?

MR. AZCUNA. The government has no right to a
return on its investment for public service. So, it has
no right.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Could we perhaps resolve this issue if both Commis-
sioner Davide and Commissioner Regalado will approach
the Committee and formulate whatever suggestions they
have? They have been saying so many words and I think
the body is now confused.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). For
the benefit of the other Members of the Commission,
let us take it up one by one. We are now on the fourth
paragraph. The first line states: “THE STATE shall
regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS
AND ...” Does the Gentleman have any amendment
there?

MR. REGALADO. None, Mr. Presiding Officer.

The next line, “labor to its just share,” is all right.

It is on the third line that I suggested the amendment
to eliminate “BUSINESS” such that it will read: “and
the EQUIVALENT right of ENTERPRISES to reason-
able returns.” The reason I put “EQUIVALENT right of
ENTERPRISES” is to put it as an equipoise with the
word “FOREMOST” on the second line as insisted *
upon by the Committee.

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Ople is recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
the Committee now indicate what amendatory word has
been accepted by the Committee and what amendatory
word has not been accepted?

MR. OPLE. I wanted to convey the concern that
Commissioner Bacani had already stated that the use
of the term “private enterprise” might prejudice the
nght to the same protection under this section of
vanous classes of workers and employees in govern-
ment enterprises and in the public service itself.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Th.
C an declares a suspension of the session.

It was 5:30 p.nt.

resumption of session

At 5:35 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

mi™nefR?gSs?rcS

oodtL'^rf the*r°' Officer, I think

phrase “the nghf^hS iVto “d

right of ENTERPRISES to reasoSe tSmT”

the word enterpnses,” taking away the word “I
ness,” will cover all possible enterprises not necess
for business.

MS. AQUINO. The Committee has accepted the
substitution of the word “LABOR” in place of the wor
“WORKERS” and ENTERPRISES in place of the terrn
“BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. However, the proposed
amendment to substitute the word “EQUIVALENT
for “corresponding” is not acceptable to the Commi -
tee. We would submit it to the body for a vote.

May the Committee be allowed to explain? It is the
shared sentiment that the substitution of the word
“corresponding” with “EQUIVALENT” would efftc;
tively reduce the potency of the word “FOREMOSl-

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is
Commissioner Regalado insisting on his amendment o
adding the word “EQUIVALENT”?

MR. REGALADO. Yes, to be voted upon by the
body, because of their insistence on putting the word
“FOREMOST” insofar as labor is concerned.

MR. RODRIGO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER <Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO. Is “EQUIVALENT” or “CORRE-
SPONDING” the word to be inserted?

MR. REGALADO. The amendment of the Commit-
tee omitted the word “appropriate ”in the drafting.

MS. AQUINO.“Corresponding.”

MR. RODRIGO. “Corresponding.”

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

103

MR. REGALADO. Lack of “corresponding.”

MR. RODRIGO. I am asking whether the amendment
of Commissioner Regalado is to insert the word
“EQUIVALENT.”

MR. REGALADO. “EQUIVALENT right” instead
of “corresponding right.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). We
will take this up one by one. Will the Committee now
indicate again the amendatory word of Commissioner
Regalado which has been accepted so that we do not
have to put that to a vote?

MS. AQUINO. The last paragraph, as amended,
reads: “THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, RECOG-
NIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just
share, and the corresponding right of ENTERPRISES
to reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION
AND GROWTH.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). That
is acceptable now to the Committee.

MS. AQUINO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.

We will go now to the word “EQUIVALENT.” Will
the Committee indicate again where that word is
supposed to be inserted?

MS. AQUINO. On the penultimate line of the fourth
paragraph, between the words “the” and “right,” there
is supposed to be the word “corresponding.” The
omission is a typographical error and now Commis-
sioner Regalado seeks to delete this word and substitute
the word “EQUIVALENT.

VOTING

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair will now put it to a vote.

As many as are in favor of the insertion of the word
“EQUIVALENT between the words “the” and “right”
on the third line of the last paragraph of this draft,
please rarse then hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO. There is another typographical error
on the second line of paragraph 3. There was an omis-
sion of the word PREFERENTIAL before the word
“use.”

MR. DAVIDE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE. If that is a committee amendment,
I would like to propose an amendment. Between the
words “employers” and “and” on the third paragraph,
insert the following: AND THE PREFERENTIAL USE
OF VOLUNTARY MODES; then on the second line,
add s to “dispute” and delete the words “through
the.” On the third line, delete the words “use of volun-
tary modes,” so that the entire paragraph will read:
“The state shall promote the principle of shared res-
ponsibility between workers and employers AND THE
PREFERENTIAL USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES in
settling their disputes, including conciliation, and
enforcement of their mutual compliance therewith.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. The Committee accepts the amend-
ment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
amendment as proposed by Commissioner Davide has
been accepted by the Committee.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.

Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, my amend-
ment is an amendment by addition. This is coauthored
by Commissioner Foz.

After the word “share,” add the words: IN THE
FRUITS OF PRODUCTION.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
the Gentleman kindly indicate the paragraph.

MR. SARMIENTO. On the fourth paragraph, add the
words IN THE FRUITS OF PRODUCTION. May I
briefly explain?

As 3re against, please raise their hand.

(Several Members raised their hand.)

The results show 13 votes in favor and 20 against;
the proposed amendment is lost.

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Gentleman may proceed.

MR. SARMIENTO. The words “just share” seem
incomplete; they could mean just share in the owner-
ship, management and profit of enterprise.

104

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MR. BENGZON. We accept the amendment.

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
proposed amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento has
been accepted by the Committee.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.

Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA. On lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 4,

I suggest that we eliminate “foremost” and “corre-
sponding.” There are some adjectives that are meaning-
ful like “preferential.” The words “foremost” and
“corresponding” do not seem to add any substance.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair does not understand the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Padilla. What specifically is the Gentle-
man’s proposed amendment?

MR. PADILLA. On Unes 2 and 3, eliminate “fore-
most” and “corresponding.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. The Committee regrets that it cannot
accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Committee does not accept the proposed amendment.
Does the Gentleman insist on a vote?

MR. PADILLA. May I explain briefly my amend-
ment and then I ask for a vote. The sharing of res-
ponsibility and likewise the sharing of the benefits of
industrial peace are rights not only of labor but also
of the enterprise. Actually, if the enterprise does not
earn or realize profits as reasonable returns on invest-
ments, if there are no profits or net income, then there
can hardly be any basis for the share of labor m the
fruits of production. They are joint rights, concomitant,
mutually dependent on each other. So, I feel that the
adjectives or the words “foremost” and “correspond-
ing” do not add to the real intent of more productivity,
which we fervently expect from industrial peace. Both
factors should derive enough earnings or profits for
reasonable returns to capital and a just share to labor.
When the word “just” justifies “share,” that is mean-
ingful; but the adjectives “foremost” and “correspond-
ing” do not add any substantial significance.

BISHOP BACANI. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Bacani is recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. This has a psychological impact,
I believe. In actual situations when, for example, the
price of raw materials is raised, the enterprises easily
accept that, but they would not so easily raise the price
of labor or the salaries of workers. This is the last thing
they will accept to raise. In other words, the primacy
of the human component is in practice not actually
recognized; that is why it is important to indicate that
it is foremost.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is the
Committee now prepared to submit the matter to a
vote?

MR. PADILLA Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA. I cannot fuUy agree that this is only
for psychological effect because we must be realistic.

BISHOP BACANI. That is part of reality — the
psychology of people: the way they react, the way they
look at things.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Shall
we now put the amendment to a vote?

As many as are in favor of the amendment, please
raise their hand. ( Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

The results show 1 8 votes in favor and 17 against; the
proposed amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner David e be
recognized to present an amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

This is a very simple amendment. On Section 13,
instead of “EVERY” before “protection,” use the word
FULL.

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

105

MS. QUESADA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA. I would like to propose an amend-
ment to this.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer, we did not
understand the amendment of the Gentleman. We were
looking at Section 13 but the proceedings were so fast.
It does not matter to me anyway.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). For
the information of Commissioner de Castro, on Section
13, line 1, what was sought to be amended and what
was accepted by the committee is the change of the
word “every” to FULL. It was already approved.

MR. REGALADO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Regalado is recognized.

MR. REGALADO. I think a little confusion arises
here because of the fact that there is a typographical
error — instead of Section 13, it should be Section 3.
So, the other Commissioners are looking at the end
of the Article while we are referring to Section 3.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair corrects itself; it should be Section 3.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. For the last amendment to Section 3,
I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, this is an amend-
ment that seeks to add a phrase after the word “there-
with” on the third paragraph. The words to be inserted
are: IN THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment, except
that it might sound a bit awkward because the word
“promote” appears already in the beginning of the
sentence. But in principle, we accept the proposed
amendment.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Would Commissioner Foz
accept an amendment to his amendment? Instead of
“PROMOTION,” how about the word ACHIEVEMENT
so there will be no redundancy. So it will read: “IN
THE ACHIEVEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.”

MR. FOZ. “IN THE REALIZATION OF INDUS-
TRIAL PEACE.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). So,
the word now is “REALIZATION.” What does the
Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
proposed amendment is accepted.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. There are no more proponents of
amendments to Section 3, so I ask that a vote be taken
on the whole Section 3 after its reading.

MR. ROMULO. May we ask the high-speed train to
slow down a bit because the Committee has some
suggestions.

MS. QUESADA. Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like
to propose an amendment which has been accepted by
the members of the Committee and that is, to bring
back the original provision which reads: “The State
shall afford FULL protection to labor, LOCAL AND
OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED,
and promote full employment and equality of em-
ployment opportunities for all.”

In the public hearing the problems of unorganized
as well as of the overseas or migrant workers have
often been mentioned. The reason we did not have any
special section for this particular group is because of
this one statement that would already cover the concern
for these particular members of the labor sector. So,
as we had already provided such protection to fisher-
men and to farmworkers, I believe . . .

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. JAMIR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Quesada was just about to finish her sentence;
will the Commissioner continue.

106

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MS. QUESADA. As I was saying, we have already
provided a special provision for fishermen, and the
inclusion of this particular provision would already put
the stress that we are considering the plight of the
unorganized and overseas workers.

This was in the original provision but was deleted
because of the demand for brevity. I have appealed
and the Committee has reconsidered this particular
provision.

MR. JAMIR. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Jamir is recognized.

MR. JAMIR. May I know whether that is a recon-
sideration?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Floor Leader will respond to that because it is the
recollection of the Chair that this first sentence has
already been approved. Will the Floor Leader please
respond to the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner
Jamir?

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:00 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
session is resumed.

Is it the understanding of the Chair, Commissioner
Foz, that in the approved amendment on paragraph 3
which reads “in the realization of industrial peace,” the
Commissioner would wish to amend the word “realiza-
tion” to some other word?

MR. FOZ. The amendment is to change the phrase
“in the realization of industrial peace” to the following
phrase: “TO FOSTER industrial peace.”

May we know the reaction of the Committee?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair will now treat this as a primary amendment to an
approved amendment.

What does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. We accept the amendment.

MR. RAMA. It seems that there needs to be a motion
tor reconsideration.

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, before we go into
such a motion for reconsideration, I would like to go
ac to a previous amendment which was accepted by
the Committee regarding the phrase “in the realization
peace.” I think the more proper word is

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
proposed amendment is accepted.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Just a
moment, please. Let us put everything in order. The
phrase in the realization of industrial peace” has been
accepted by the Committee and since nobody objected,
it was approved by the body. So, the Gentleman is now
asking for a reconsideration of the approval of his
amendment, “in the realization of industrial peace.”

MR. JAMIR. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Jamir is recognized.

The Floor Leader will please respond once more to
the parliamentary inquiry.

MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, and this has the
clear^ce of the Committee. I would like to change the
word realization” to “FURTHERANCE of industrial

THE PRESIDING OFFICER
does the Committee say?

(Mr. Maambong). What

MR. RAMA. What is the parliamentary inquiry?

MR. JAMIR. My parliamentary inquiry is whether the
statement of Commissioner Quesada is a motion for
reconsideration.

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. AQUINO. For a while,
on the alternative formula.

we are trying to agree

the presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Aquino is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair declares a suspension of the session.

It was 5:59 p.m.

MS. AQUINO. The Committee volunteers to answer
the question. If the Gentleman remembers, yesterday
when we decided to vote on paragraphs (a) and (b) of
Section 3, they were subject to the proposed recasting
by Commissioner Colay co.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

107

MR. JAMIR. So, this is not a reconsideration.

MS. AQUINO. This is not a reconsideration. The
Committee, on its own initiative, recasted the whole
paragraphs in cooperation with some of the Com-
missioners who have shown interest in this particular
section, and the omission originally agreed upon is now
being subjected to another amendment.

MR. JAMIR. But I understand that we have already
approved the first paragraph.

MS. AQUINO. We did. But if I remember correctly,
it was subject to recasting.

MR. JAMIR. In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am
making it of record that I will file a motion for recon-
sideration of the second sentence of Section 5. I voted
in favor of this and tomorrow, at the opportune time, I
will ask for a reconsideration so that I may be able to
introduce my amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair takes note of that reservation.

Commissioner Aquino is recognized.

MR. JAMIR. Thank you.

MS. AQUINO. The particular reservation on the
recasting by Justice Colayco pertained only to Section
3. But the Gentleman filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion.

MR. JAMIR. But I am now making it of record my
right to ask for a reconsideration of the second sentence
of Section 5 because I voted in favor of that.

MS. AQUINO. That is independent of the proceed-
ings on Section 3 .

MR. JAMIR. Yes, that is independent; that is dif-
ferent.

MS. AQUINO. Yes, I was confused because the
Gentleman mentioned it immediately after our delibera-
tions on Section 3.

MR. JAMIR. No, I am afraid that the hour is quite
late, that is why I rushed to make of record my motion
for reconsideration.

MS. AQUINO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). That
reservation. Commissioner Jamir, has already been
noted by the Chair. We will now address ourselves to the
proposed amendment on tlie first paragraph of Section
3 to add, after the word “labor” on, the first line,
“LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UN-

ORGANIZED” and a comma (,). Is that the correct
amendment. Commissioner Quesada?

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall afford FULL
protection to labor, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, OR-
GANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities
for all.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, in support
of Commissioner Quesada’s manifestation, I move for
the reconsideration of Section 3 to incorporate all her
amendments.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). It has
already been clarified by Commissioner Aquino that
there was merely a recasting of the section; so, there is
no need for a reconsideration.

MR. SARMIENTO. Then I withdraw my motion,
Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
motion for reconsideration is withdrawn.

What does the Committee say to the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Quesada?

MS. AQUINO. Yes, we accept the proposed amend-
ment.

the presiding officer (Mr. Maambong). The
proposed amendment is accepted by the Committee.

Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is

approved.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR- RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there are no more
registered amenders to this section and I do not think
there are suggestions from the Committee; so, I ask that
we take a vote on the whole Section 3 .

MR. GASCON. I would like to make a clarification
on the second paragraph of Section 3.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Gascon is recognized.

MR- GASCON. Just for the record, as we approved it
last Wednesday, on the third line of the second para-
graph, after “wage,” the body approved a period (.) and
the phrase “they shall also participate.” To make it
clear, the last phrase of that sentence only refers to
participation in policy- and decision-making and not to
“the security of tenure, just and humane conditions.

108

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

and the living wage.” This was approved by a vote of 35
in favor and 2 against. This was the Bemas amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
anybody respond to that statement of Commissioner
Gascon?

MS. AQUINO. The Committee accepts the amend-
ment. It is a matter of restyling.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). We
are now ready to put the whole Section 3 to a vote. For
the benefit of all the Members, I would suggest that one
of the Committee members, who is in complete posses-
sion of all the amendments, read the whole Section 3.

MR. FOZ. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. This is a minor point but it is important.
On paragraph 2, line 3, after “activities,” there should
be a comma (,).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Gentleman is presenting a perfecting amendment by
adding a comma (,)?

MR. FOZ. There was an amendment in the previous
draft.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. AQUINO. The Committee accepts the amend-
ment.

“The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and the enforcement of their
mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

“The State shall regulate the relations between
workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to
its just share in the fruits of production and the right of
enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, ex-
pansion and growth.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). As
many as are in favor of the whole Section 3, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 34 votes in favor and none against;
the whole Section 3 is approved.

MR. COLAYCO. May I explain my vote of

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Colay CO is recognized.

COMMISSIONER COLAYCO
EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. COLAYCO. I am constrained to vote ^
because I agree with the main thrust of this section. But
I want to make it of record that I still believe we are too
profligate and generous with words.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is
there any objection to that perfecting amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.

Will the Committee please read the whole Section 3

so that everybody will understand before we take a
vote.

to A afford full protect

Ind nromn^ Overseas, organized and unorganh
and promote ful employment and equaUty of empl
ment opportunities for all. ^ ^ ^

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to '
organ, zat, on collective bargaining and negotiatk
peaceful and concerted acUvities, including the righ'
stnke m accordance w„h law. They shall L enUtle,
secunty of tenure, humane conditions of work an
living wage. They shall also participate in poUcy
decision-making processes affecting their rights
benefits as may be provided by law.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. We now move on to Section 13 as
denominated under the subtitle “Health.”

MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Aquino is recognized.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MS. AQUINO. The Committee requests a suspension
of session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The

session is suspended.

It was 6:1 1 p.m.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

109

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:16 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a con-
sensus among the Commissioners tliat we jump to tlie
section under the subtitle “Women.”

May I ask that the foremost expert in women, Com-
missioner Romulo, be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Romulo, the expert in women, is recognized.
(Laughter)

MR. ROMULO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

My amendment is to combme Sections 16 and 17 to
read as follows: “The State shall PROTECT THE work-
ing women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL
working conditions, PARTICULARLY RELATING to
their maternal functions, AND SUCH facilities AS will
RELEASE THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS FOR
the service of the NATION.”

MS. AQUINO. The Committee joyfully accepts the
amendment.

MR. BENGZON. We accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair would like a clarification first. On the fourth line
of the draft, the Commissioner has “AND SUCH
FACILITIES AS WILL LIBERATE”; the Gentleman
changed it to another word.

MR. ROMULO. Yes, because Commissioners such as
Commissioners Regalado, Ople and Azcuna have con-
tributed to the metamorphosis of this paragraph.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). So,
instead of “LIBERATE,” what is it now?

MR. ROMULO. “RELEASE.”

MR. OPLE. Will the proponent accept a minor
amendment?

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Ople is recognized.

MR. ROMULO. I will consider it.

MR. OPLE. “The State shall PROVIDE FACILITIES
TO RELEASE THE ENERGIES AND TALENTS.” Is it
facilities or opportunities that release energies and
talents?

MR. ROMULO. I took it from the draft of the Com-
mittee, and it said “facilities.” I myself am not sure
what those facilities consist of. (Laughter) But the
Committee has accepted my amendment, so may I refer
it to the Committee?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Rosario Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. May I just make an amend-
ment to tlie amendment and that is by including a
phrase that will accommodate the disadvantaged
women. Tliis provision is for working women and
although many women are marginalized, there are some
who are more marginalized than others; namely, the
illiterates, particularly in terms of working conditions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Where
does Commissioner Rosario Braid propose to insert the
word “DISADVANTAGED”?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. “Working women” usually
connotes working in the formal economy. There are
illiterates.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Committee has accepted the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Romulo. But probably, we should first
dispose of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rosario Braid. What does the Committee say to that?

MS. AQUINO. The Committee believes that it is an
unnecessary surplusage and we regret that we cannot
accept it.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. “Working women” usually
connotes working in the formal economy. There are
many women who do not really work in the formal
workplace. They are marginalized and we would like to
include them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
The Committee which has accepted the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Romulo does not seem
to be in favor of accepting Commissioner Rosario
Braid’s proposed amendment to the amendment.

Will the Commissioner insist on her amendment?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I would not mind if we are
able to come up with a provision that will really address
itself to the marginalized women where the concern is
more than just providing them safe and healthful
conditions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
The Chair suggests that we first dispose of the primary
amendment after which we can probably take up the
amendment to the amendment.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

The parliamentary situation is that we have a pro-
posed amendment which has been accepted by the
Committee.

MR. OPLE. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. May I return to my previous remark
which has the embryo of a proposed amendment. I
thought that to complete the sense of the sentence, I
could invite the Committee to consider adding AND
OPPORTUNITIES after “facilities” so that it will read:
“facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES AS will RELEASE
THEIR ENERGIES AND TALENTS.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
the Committee respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT. May I just offer a comment.
I do not see why we will need these facilities to release
our energies. Our energies are there but these facilities
will enhance or, in other words, make our energies
perhaps more productive. But “ENHANCE,” 1 believe,
is a better word than “RELEASE.”

MR. SARMIENTO. Besides, Mr. Presiding Officer, the
word “RELEASE” has a malicious connotation.

THE PRESIDENT. I support that statement, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
parliamentary situation is that the proposed amendment
to change the word “RELEASE” to “ENHANCE” has
been presented by the Chair to the Committee but the
Committee threw it back to the proponent. Com-
missioner Romulo. So we will now hear from Commis-
sioner Romulo who will give us the right interpretation.

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, before the
Committee responds, will Commissioner Ople yield to
an aihendment to his amendment?

Instead of using “RELEASE,” we use ENHANCE so
that it will read: “ENHANCE THEIR ENERGIES AND
TALENTS.”

MR. OPLE. The enhancement is an additive in order
to improve without changing.

What about RELEASE AND EN-

MR. OPLE. Yes, it will diminish the meaning of

release.” (laug/zter)

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Per-
aps we should present that formulation to the Commit-
tee because this amendment has already been accepted
by the Committee and it is actually in its jurisdiction.

What does the Committee say to the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento?

MS. AQUINO. We would like the advice of the

ongmal proponent, Commissioner Romulo, on this
matter.

MR. SARMIENTO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Cor
missioner Sarmiento is recognized whUe Commission
Romulo IS still busy with something else.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. NIEVA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I address a
question to the proponent of the amendment?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Nieva may proceed.

MS. NIEVA. Does the Commissioner prefer releasing
whatever energies to promoting the welfare and well-
being of women?

MR. ROMULO. I was trying to compress the two

ideas. Actually, my original wording was “LIBERA 1 .

MS. NIEVA. But how about the welfare and well-
being of women? Is it still encompassed?

MR. ROMULO. How about “HARNESS THEIR
ENERGIES AND TALENTS”?

MS. NIEVA. I do not know. I am not so concerned
about the energies and talents; I think the welfare an
well-being of women is more important since this is a
social justice provision. It is my personal feeling that vve
placed this provision to protect the welfare and well-
being of women and not so much to harness their
talents and capabilities for nation-building. The protec-
tion of the welfare and well-being of women, for me, is
basic.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). May
the Chair ask a clarification on that? The proponent
does not accept the change of the word “RELEASE” to
“ENHANCE.”

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
President is recognized.

MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask for
a suspension of the session?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
session is suspended for one minute.

It was 6:27 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:31 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
session is resumed.

Has Commissioner Romulo conferred with the
Committee?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. After
having released our energies in combination with the
Committee, we have agreed on a common amendment.
Commissioner Aquino will now read it.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Aquino is recognized.

MS. AQUINO. The section will read: “The State shall
PROTECT THE working women by providing SAFE
AND HEALTHFUL working conditions, TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT their maternal functions, AND SUCH
facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT will EN-
HANCE THEIR WELFARE AND WELL-BEING TO
REALIZE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN the service of
the NATION.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Has
the proponent heard the formulation? Is that what the
Commissioner agreed on?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.

MR- RAMA. There are no more proponents of any
amendments to the section on women. So, I ask that we
vote on the whole section.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). May
the Chair know from Commissioner Romulo what
would be the numbering of the section now, considering
that this is proposed to be the combination of Sections
16 and 17?

MR. ROMULO. Section 17 is now deleted and com-
bined with Section 16.

MR. RAMA. May I ask the Committee to read the
full text of Section 16.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Will
the Committee now read the whole Section 16 for
purposes of voting?

MS. NIEVA. “The State shall PROTECT THE work-
ing women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL
working conditions, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT their
maternal functions, AND SUCH facilities AND OP-
PORTUNITIES THAT will ENHANCE THEIR WEL-
FARE AND WELL-BEING TO REALIZE THEIR
FULL POTENTIAL IN the service of the NATION.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair is now putting Section 16, as read, to a vote.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; Section 16 is approved.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Before we adjourn, Mr. Presiding
Officer, there is only one proponent of amendments to
all the three provisions under the subtitle “Minors.”
May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE. The second sentence on the section on
“Minors” will read as follows: INFANTS, PARTICU-
LARLY ORPHANS AND ABANDONED CHILDREN,
ARE LIKEWISE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE STATE.

MR. GASCON. Will Commissioner Davide accept an
amendment?

MR. DAVIDE. May I hear it, Mr. Presiding Officer?

MR. GASCON. Delete the word “PARTICULARLY”
because orphans and abandoned children may not
necessarily be infants.

MR. DAVIDE. The amendment is gladly accepted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
does the Committee say?

MS. NIEVA. We accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com
missioner Davide, as of the moment, that section will b(
Section 18. Is that correct?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, it would be renumbered ac
cordingly. But it will be a new sentence to what appear
to be Section 1 8 under the heading “Minors.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Th(
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide has beei
accepted by the Committee.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hear.-
none; the amendment is approved.

112

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MS. NIEVA. Are we to understand that that replaces •
the whole section?

MR. BENGZON. Was that an additional paragraph or
a replacement of the existing provision?

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Why
do we not just say “MINORS” and include working
minors, nonworking minors and sick minors?

MR. DAVIDE. It is an additional sentence. So, may Commmissioner Davide is recognized,
we request a vote on the whole section.

MR. DAVIDE. There is still a distinction between

MS. NIEVA. So, how would the entire section read? “minors” and “infants.”

MR. DAVIDE. The entire section will read; “THE
STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION
TO MINORS ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS, AND
SHALL PROHIBIT THEIR EXPLOITATION AND IN-
SURE THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT. INFANTS,
ORPHANS AND ABANDONED CHILDREN ARE
LIKEWISE ENTITLED TO THE SPECIAL PROTEC-
TION OF THE STATE.”

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. MONSOD. No, I am only suggesting that we
delete the words “ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS”
because we are already stating “SPECIAL PROTEC-
TION TO” and then enumerate. So, a minor is part of
that phrase.

MR. SUAREZ. Mr. Presiding Officer, when the
Gentleman speaks of working minors, I suppose we are
referring to minors allowed to work under the law.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Monsod is recognized.

“cm^T j’^st combine

provide special PROTECTION
TO MINORS, INFANTS . . .”

in Gentleman wants it insertei

ooA T provision wiU read; “THE ST AT]

nPxic provide SPECIAL PROTECTION TO Ih
abandoned CHILDREN ANl
WORKING MINORS, AN)
iilPiPL prohibit their exploitation AN)
INSURE THEIR FULL DEVELOPMENT.” That woul
be only one sentence then.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Is that
an acceptable formulation to the Committee?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. Not like an ordinary newsboy, for
example, selling newspapers at street intersections.

MR. DAVIDE. That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer
This would refer, for instance, to those allowed to work
in apprenticeship.

MR. SUAREZ. Like in McDonald’s, for example.

MR. DAVIDE. We also have to consider minor young
girls being abused by some enterprising businessmen m
indecent acts or shows. These are the main concerns.

MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner would not be
extending any kind of protection by the State to those
newsboys whom we see every morning?

MR. TINGSON. Mr. Presiding Officer.

P^^^HING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Co
missioner Tingson is recognized.

th^'^iiMe^k^^^ ^ j^st inquire? It seems to i
minors? ^ referring to work;

MR. DAVIDE. They would be included because the
phrase is “ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS,
meaning to say, that the protection would be to all but
special emphasis should be given to working minors.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. SARMIENTO. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Pres-
iding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

MR. TINGSON. May I please have an explanati<

Philippines, we still class
persons below 21 as minors, but above 14 or even ab
13, they can already work. We would like to give spe
protection to that age level.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). What
is the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner Sar-
miento?

MR. SARMIENTO. I understand, Mr. Presiding Of-
ficer, that we have a provision on minors and children in
the Declaration of Principles. Is this a repetition of that
provision? May we be enlightened on this point?

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

113

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). I am
not particularly aware of that provision in the Declara-
tion of Principles, but perhaps Commissioner Davide
could respond to the parliamentary inquiry.

MR. DAVIDE. I understand that if the proposed
Declaration of Principles would only be a copy of the
1973 provision that the State shall assist the youth in
their social, physical and intellectual development, that
would be completely an entirely different concept. It
would cover the youth but it is a very broad mandate
or principle. This is a specific one.

Davide or is it a motion to transfer this provision to
the Declaration of Principles? We will have to present
that before the Committee.

MR. DAVIDE. As an amendment to the proposed
section in the Declaration of Principles.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
This is properly Section 18; it is properly under the
jurisdiction of the Committee. So, we have to ask the
Committee about it.

MR. SARMIENTO. I understand, Mr. Presiding
Officer, from the member of the Committee on Declara-
tion of Principles that we have a similar provision. May
I ask Commissioner Tingson to enlighten us on this
point.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). Com-
missioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON. I have in my possession the reported
section. It reads:

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institu-
tion. The State shall equally protect the life of the motlier
and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
The natural right and duty of parents in tlie rearing of the
youth for civic efficiency in the development of moral
character shall receive tlie aid and support of tlie govern-
ment.

The last paragraph of Section 10 reads:

The State shall protect children from all forms of
neglect, cruelty and exploitation particularly in conditions
harmful to their physical, mental or moral well-being.

So, that is covered in our Declaration of Principles.

MS. NIEVA. Yes, we agree.

MR. BENGZON. We agree that this be transferred
to the Declaration of Principles.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
That solves the problem then.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. There are only two more sections,
Mr. Presiding Officer, apart from health. This is
under the subtitle “Role and Rights of People s Or-
ganization.” There is only one proponent and he has
an amendment to these two sections. May I ask that
Commissioner Davide be recognized?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Before the Chair recognizes Commissioner Davide, we
have here the provision on Role and Rights of
People’s Organization, Sections 19 and 20. Does the
Committee have any formulation other than the one
which I have?

MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. DAVIDE. My proposal then would be to
delete this particular heading and to transfer it to the
Declaration of Principles. In other words, we make
reservations for possible amendments to the Declara-
tion of Principles and State Policy.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Chair takes note of the mtention of Commissioner
Davide. But before we present that to the Committee,
we have to dispose of the parliamentary inquiry of
Commissioner Sarmiento, considering the reading of
the provision on minors in the Declaration of Princi-
ples. What is now the pleasure of the Gentleman?

MR. SARMIENTO. With that clarification, I
withdraw my parliamentary inquiry. It has been
completely satisfied.

the PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
There is now a pending intention of Commissioner

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.

MR. MONSOD. I am a member of the Committee
but I would like to ask for a definition of “people’s
organizations.”

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized

on Sections

and 20. Did we skip the provisions on health?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). We
did not, we only deferred consideration of the pro-
visions on health.

114

FRIDAY, AUGUST 8, 1986

MS. NIEVA. Mr. Presiding Officer, some members
of the Committee say that they are too tired to tackle
these provisions tonight and they think there may be
more changes than we have anticipated. We suggest
to defer this until tomorrow.

MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong). The
Floor Leader is recognized.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. RAMA. I ask that we adjourn the session until
tomorrow.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong).
Is there any objection to the motion to adjourn?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is adjourned
until tomorrow at nine o’clock in the morning.

It was 6:47 p.m.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

115

R.C.C. NO. 52
Saturday, August 9, 1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 9:25 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia
Munoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing
the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable
Crispino M. de Castro.

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.

PRAYER

MR. DE CASTRO. Almighty God; We beseech Thee
once again to guide our minds and our hearts so that the
thoughts and feelings that may emanate from each of us
will be those of the Filipmo people on whose behalf we
seek to fashion a fundamental law that shall embody
our collective ideals and aspirations.

Enlighten us, O Lord. Open our eyes and minds. Give
us the courage and the strength to see and understand
those ideals and proposals that may differ from our
own.

Let the light of reason shine on our discussions and
debates so that we may exchange ideas, thoughts and
arguments with truth, clarity and sincerity towards
democratic ideals. This, our people expect from us.

Help us, O Lord, to finish this Constitution as early
as possible because millions of Filipinos are awaiting the
day when we shall live in peace and in glory.

Thank you, O Lord, Amen.

roll call

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call
the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar Present* Aquino Present*

Alonto Present* Azcuna Present

Bacani

. . Present

Nolledo . . . .

. . Present

Bengzon

. . Present*

Ople

. . Present*

Bennagen . . . .

. . Present

Padilla

. . Present*

Bernas

, . Present

Quesada . . . .

. . Present

Rosario Braid . .

. Present

Rama

. . Present

Brocka

. Present

Regalado . . . .

. . Present

Calderon

. Present*

Reyes de los .

. . Present

Castro de . . . .

. Present

Rigos

. . Present

Colayco

. Present*

Rodrigo . . . .

. . Present

Concepcion . . .

. Present

Romulo . . . .

. . Present

Davide

. Present

Rosales

. . Present

Foz

. Present

Sarmiento . . .

. . Present*

Garcia

. Present*

Suarez

. . Present

Gascon

. Absent

Sumulong . . .

. . Present

Guingona . . . .

. Absent

Tadeo

. . Present

Jamir

. Present

Tan

. . Present

Laurel

. Present*

Tingson . . . .

. . Present

Lerum

. Present

Trenas

. . Present

Maambong . . .

. Present

Uka

. . Present

Monsod

. Present*

Villacorta . . .

. . Present*

Natividad . . . .

. Present*

Villegas

. . Present

Nieva

. Absent

The President is present.

The roll call shows 3 1 Members responded to the caU.

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of
a quorum.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we dis-
pense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s
session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. RAMA. I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterday’s session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we pro-
ceed to the Reference of Business.

♦Appeared after the roll call

116

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of
Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary-General read the following Com-
munications, the President making the corresponding
references:

COMMUNICATIONS

Radiogram from the Association of Philippine Phy-
sicians in America, Inc., 1830 Mirmar Road, Munster,
Indiana 46321, proposing an amendment to Section 7
of Proposed Resolution No. 496 so as to enable a
natural-bom Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine
citizenship to acquire private lands.

(Communication No. 500 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

Communication from the Philippine Union for Human
Rights, 2215 Pedro Gil St., Sta. Ana, Metro Manila
expressing its support for a draft proposal prohibiting
the extension of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement
beyond its expiry date in 1991.

(Communication No. 501 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communication from the Board of Directors of the
CEU Faculty and Allied Workers Union, expressing its
solid support for the social justice program envisioned in
the proposed Constitution and attaching thereto a copy
of its proposal to convert CEU into a cooperative,
hoping that the honorable Commissioners will find some
pertinent and relevant information therein for the
solution of the funding problem of the educational
system in the private sector.

(Communication No. 502 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Communication from Mr. Roberto G. Plata of Grepalife
and six hundred ninety-nine other petitioners seeking
to include in the new Constitution a provision obliging
the State to protect the life of the unborn from the
moment of conception.

(Communication No. 503 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

Communication from Messrs. Emerito P. Nacpil and
Emmanuel G. Cleto, both of the United Methodist
Church in the Philippines, proposing an amendment by
substitution to Section 10 of Proposed Resolution
No. 531 (Committee Report No. 3 1 ) on the separation
and mutual autonomy of the Church and State.

(Communication No. 504 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

Letter from Mr. Abraham Sarmiento for Nationalist
Alliance for Justice, Freedom and Democracy, urging
the inclusion of provisions banning foreign military
bases, and nuclear weapons and facilities from Philip-
pine territory.

(Communication No. 505 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Letter from Mr. Miguel Resus of Diatagon, L.ianga,
Surigao del Sur, suggesting, among others, that Filipino
citizens abroad be allowed to vote; that every individual
must be allowed to donate a portion of his tax obliga-
tion to charitable, political, educational and sports
purposes; and that dual citizenship may be allowed to
Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship.

(Communication No. 506 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

Communication from the Philippine Association for the
Advancement of Science, Inc. signed by Mr. Quin tin L.
Kintanar, expressing its full support to Proposed Resol^
tion No. 222, entitled: “RESOLUTION ADOPTING
PROVISIONS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FOR INCLUSION IN THE PROPOSED NEW CON-
STITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIP-
PINES.”

(Communication No. 507 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Letter from Ms. Leticia L. de Leon of 7 Mother Ignacia
Avenue, Quezon City, advocating the teaching of
religion in both public and private schools, making this
compulsory for Catholics to be taught the Catholic
faith, the Protestants, the Protestant faith, and so forth.

(Communication No. 508 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Letter from Mr. Amando R. Ortiz of M. H. del Pilar
Street, Tabaco, AJbay, suggesting, among others, that
coconut lands should not be covered by land reform and

To the Committee on General Provisions.

To the Steering Committee.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

117

that P.D. No. 27 be amended to give the heirs of land-
owners shares of the property.

(Communication No. 509 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Communication from the Philippine Institute of Civil
Engineers, First Quezon City Chapter, Centroid Build-
ing, 395 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, signed by Ms.
Vivian M. de los Reyes, transmitting a Resolution
addressed to President Corazon C. Aquino, requesting
the adoption of a national policy requiring the utiliza-
tion of services of qualified Filipino professionals and
experts in all government projects which are funded by
the Philippine government or by foreign loans.

(Communication No. 510 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

Letter from Ms. Melba P. Maggay of the Institute for
Studies in Asian Church and Culture, 4 Malinis Street,
U.P. Village, Quezon City, endorsing the proposal of
Konfes, a group of evangelical Christians, for the reten-
tion of the text of Section 8, Article XV of the 1973
Constitution regarding religious instruction in public
elementary and high schools.

(Communication No. 5 1 1 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Letter from Mr. Horacio V. Marasigan of the Concerned
Citizens of San Juan, Batangas, submitting his proposal
regarding “THE STRATEGY FOR DISTRIBUTING
the PATRIMONY OF THE NATION” and “RESO-
LUTION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND AND
ITS FRUITS.”

(Communication No. 512 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. There is an important information from
the Muslim world which Commissioner Uka will an-
nounce. I ask that Commissioner Uka be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recog-
nized.

MR. UKA. Madam President, honorable Members of
the Constitutional Commission:

I have been requested by our other Commissioners,
Honorable Alonto and Abubakar, that I inform the
honorable Members of the Commission that one of the
most important Muslim holidays, Hariraya Had], will be
celebrated on Friday, August 15, 1986 by the 7 mUlion
Muslims in the Philippines and about 1 bilLion Muslims
all over the world. As a matter of fact, about 2,000 of
our brother Muslims have left for the Holy City of
Mecca. This is in celebration of the founding of the
monotheistic faith in that part of the world by Father
Abraham and his sacrifice of his son Ismael. And so, I
just want to say that this is a very important occasion
for us.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Chairman and
some of tlie members of the Committee on Social
Justice are not yet here. May I ask for a suspension of
the session for five minutes?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 9:38 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 9:44 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)

Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

MR. RAMA. We are now in the period of amend-
ments on the Article on Social Justice. The Committee
has suggested that we take up the last two sections
under the title: Role and Rights of People’s Organiza-

tions.”

I so move.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.

118

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.

Before going into that, I understand that Commis-
sioner Garcia has a proposed definition of people’s
organization which needs to be incorporated into the
proposed Section 19.

THE PRESIDENT. Is it Commissioner Garcia or
Commissioner Monsod?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair suspends the session for
a few minutes.

It was 9:4 7 a. m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 9:54 a.m., the session was resumed.

MR. DAVIDE. Commissioners Garcia and Monsod; it
was Commissioner Monsod who requested a definition.

THE PRESIDENT. Can we call this later when Com-
missioner Monsod is around?

How about the section on health? Last night, we sus-
pended the discussion on the Article on Social Justice
with respect to health. Are we ready? Commissioner
Quesada is already here.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. The Committee is now ready to discuss
amendments to the provision under the section on
health. So may I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are still some
st^atements or explanations of Commissioner Quesada
that are bemg mimeographed or xeroxed and she

nized^ PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide

IS recog-

stamtoe^thy/^^ Madam President, if it is the under-
mv u ‘^^^^ideration of the definition

s^ntenr^nf ^ foUowing: In the opening

“the- pna ^ deletion of the wordj

Justice ^ will just read: “In the pursuit of Socia

MR. BENNAGEN. It is accepted.

^ introduce.

amPi^H^ definition because I have somi

amendments on it.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President,
nized ^ PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recoj

MR. BENNAGEN x,

the definition of “people’ro?/"— ^ ^°P^ °
gested to be Section 21 I

shared by the Committee but le^my^-® whether this i

sonally. I am not in favor of bcludin^ ? r
“people’s organizations” in thTlmf® ^ definifion o
did not even include even as we want ^

of “social justice.” I do not see whv it f ^ definitio:

to define peoples organizations” rather th™ "och
justice.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. Thank you, Madam President.

The honorable Commissioners have a copy of the
amended version of the section on health which would
include some explanatory notes. It is necessary to
explain some of the concepts so that when one makes
an amendment it will be in the light of the term of
reference that has been used in this provision. I would
like to acknowledge the fact that this change in the
formulation has been influenced to a great extent by
the amendment of Commissioner Romulo. So, Section
13 will now read: “The State shall protect and pro-
mote the right to HEALTH. To this end, it shall adopt
an integrated and comprehensive APPROACH TO
HEALTH DEVELOPMENT . .

The new concept introduced here is the ‘ inte-
grated and comprehensive approach,” and if it is an
approach, it cannot just be to health care but to health
development which would be more encompassing than
just the provision of health care. So to continue:
“. . . WHICH shall make essential goods, HEALTH and
OTHER social services available to all citizens at af-
fordable cost, with priority for the needs of the
UNDERPRIVILEGED, . . has been substituted for
the word “disadvantaged” to be in keeping with the
other terms used in the other sections such as those in
the Urban Land Reform and Housing where instead of
the word “disadvantaged” the term “underprivileged”
was used. Then “. . . the sick, women and children,
aged and disabled.”

The explanatory notes would explain the important
concepts which are something new in this Constitution,
one of which is the right to health. Everybody agrees
that this is the first time that this right would ever be
written in the Constitution. Health development is
another concept that some might ask a few questions

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

119

on. This would refer to the overall improvement of the
level of health of the people to a higher level where
people can live economically productive and socially
satisfying lives. Health development would not just be
dependent on the giving of health care, but also on the
level of health resources available in'our environment
such as water, toilets, anti-pollution devices, and all
other social services which are necessary to improve
the level of health of the people.

These main concepts would probably have to be
explained because they would serve as the bases for
future legislation. This Member has been very conscious
of the criticism levelled against nonlawyers that they
are too verbose and are working on legislation rather
than on constitutional provisions, so I would like just
to use these terms. The integrated and comprehensive
approach here contains principles on the means to
achieve people’s right to health that could be adopted
by future legislation. Such an approach would require
the integration of many sectors to become involved in
addressing the health problems of the people. It would
mean improvements in food, housing, education, in
purchasing power and access to health services; higher
allocation of resources to health; more active participa-
tion of the people in health efforts; a reorientation of
health development strategies and the political will to
act on policies and plans.

But more specifically on health, the concept of in-
tegration would imply the following;

As I explained earlier when Commissioner Romulo
introduced the concept of integration and compre-
hensive health care, integration implies the need to
unify the country’s health delivery system along the
primary health care approach which is a commitment of
the Philippine government to the 134 nations that
signed the Alma Declaration in 1978, which sought to
meet the goal of health for all in the year 2000. The
State has to work out a mechanism by which the dif-
ferent agencies or instrumentalities thereof would unify
their efforts in addressing or satisfying the health care
needs of the country. These instrumentalities would
include the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Minis-
try of Health, Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sports, Ministry of National Defense, the private sector
or nongovernmental organizations.

Those who wanted to introduce some concepts such
as appropriate technology and people’s participation
and self-reliance would actually be unified in this
primary health care approach because this would now
include the concepts of people’s participation and multi-
sectoral linkages. Health interlinks with agricultural,
social development and national economic programs-.

Integration is likewise envisioned as maximizing
existing health resources, both of the government and of
the nongovernment or private sector in the spirit of
cooperation and collaboration. The State, however,
is tasked to take the initiative m strengthening “intra-
sectoral” efforts because it is very hard to work without

a mandate. There is the territoriality of one ministry
over the other, but one ministry works on its own. It
never really works holistically so that we can come out
with a picture of health of the people. So, whenever we
talk of the state of the nation’s health, most likely it is
just a reflection of the statistics derived from one minis-
try. It does not report the statistics of the health situa-
tion of our country covering other sectors like those in
education, labor, the private sector or even in the
Ministry of National Defense. The latter would have its
own statistics — how many people died in combat or in
accidents; how many actually got sick or died from
other causes. This is another concept which we hope
future legislation will work out. It is not the responsibi-
lity of the subcommittee to work out the details
because that would then bog us down into details which
everybody is wont not to go into.

Integration also envisions the health care system to
blend western medicine with traditional and oriental
health care modalities or approaches so that we will not
be purely dependent on the western model of health
care. Integration would also direct the health care sys-
tem towards prevention rather than cure; health rather
than illness; and being community-based rather than
being hospital-centered in the delivery of health care
services.

In essence these clarifications could guide future
legislators on the concept of comprehensive and in-
tegrated approach to health development.

The main consideration in the concept of compre-
hensive approach is health development. This would
mean the following:

Health services would include health promotion with
emphasis on health education. Examples of health pro-
motion are physical fitness, personal hygiene, and food
and nutrition programs. We have disease prevention or
specific protection, such as immunizations to protect
persons against specific diseases and use of protective
wears or gears to protect from injuries or illness result-
ing from dangerous substances in the work environment.
It also includes early diagnosis and treatment so that
people will not discover that they have cancer, heart
diseases and other conditions late in the game, like when
Commissioner Guingona discovered that he has a pro-
blem with his gall bladder. It is good that he is now
undergoing treatment. Then there is rehabilitation of
the disabled. So, these are the coverage of a truly
comprehensive health care. It does not just provide
treatment but goes into promotion.

Then health development should also take into
consideration the common health problems of the
country especially those affecting the majority of our
people, like communicable diseases. The number 1
killers of the country are pneumonia and tuberculosis
which can be prevented. Other problems are gastro-
enteritis, malnutrition, drug abuse, poor environ-
mental sanitation, maternal and child health problems.

120

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

and endemic diseases like malaria, schistosomiasis and
filariasis.

We are catching up with the so-called problems of
more developed countries which are the degenerative
diseases like cancer, cardiovascular diseases and mental
illness. So these are the problems that health services
should address. That is why the approach should be
comprehensive. Comprehensive coverage likewise
addresses the problems of particular population. In the
field of labor, health services attend to the problems of
workers who are exposed to certain work conditions. In
the school setting, health services address the population
problem.

So, I would like to stress that a truly comprehensive
approach to health care would require the educational
component of health programs to enable people to be
actively involved in organizing and mobilizing these
programs. I would like to emphasize that this program
on drug abuse is one of those programs that a compre-
hensive approach to health development would have to
address itself to.

The fourth concept which should be clarified also for
the record and for future legislation would be the
phr^e. make essential goods, health and other social
services available to citizens at affordable cost.” This
phrase is to highhght the fact that health as a human
nght cannot be enjoyed by the people unless these
goods and services are made available and affordable to
em especially the underprivileged sectors of our
society, n fact, I would agree to the proposition that
ere should be free medical care to the paupers,
because this is one aspect of a truly just and humane
If tu delivery system — that people need not die.
ey cannot really afford medical care, then the State

those who are classified as paupers. This
Should make Commissioner Nolledo happy.

the fifth, the phrase “the underprivileged, the
children, aged and disabled” singles
ou hese groups as disadvantaged in terms of access to
adequate health services and resources. This being the
r 1 C e on Social Justice has to single them out because
ey are denied the right to health and the right to life.

So, these are basically the concepts and the rest
would be self-explanatory .

The second section. Section 14, states: “The St

monitor

Dower fW 1 appropriate health m

THE research RESPONSIVE

BL^S^Th needs and PE

the propoS‘orcI„"Sio'„« ‘"f “f '

STOnTvE ““ *»’«he°ph“se ‘1

I^TpToblems™ health nee

I thmk that the succeeding explanatory notes would
already enlighten the Commissioner on what would be
covered by this provision, so I need not go into the

other details. Section 13 is the one I wanted to highlight
because this is where most of the proposals will be
coming from.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, 1 ask that Com-
missioner Nolledo be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recog-
nized.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. Madam President.

Commissioner Quesada said that my proposed amend-
ment is deemed included in this provision. But I do not
believe so because of the use of the term “affordable
cost,” which does not exist in the vocabulary of
paupers. They simply have no money to pay for
medicines or medical care.

I would like to insist on my amendment, with due
respect to Commissioner Quesada and with the kindest
indulgence of the Members of this Commission. I must
be very frank that I was hesitant in presenting this
amendment. But my conscience bothered me and
dictated to me that I should pursue it before this Com-
mission. Madam President, it is a truism that I slept with
my conscience.

I would like to explain this before I propose the
amendment. I would like to submit it to the body for
voting. This is a very emphatic provision that was
initially objected to by my friend. Sister Christine Tan,
on the ground that it will promote mendicancy but the
question of whether it will promote mendicancy is on
the matter of implementation. I think Congress can
adopt measures to see to it that this will not promote
mendicancy.

I am insisting on this amendment. Madam President,
because just like Sister Tan, my sister, Nelia (now Sister
Idmara, S.Sp.S.) is also a nun at the Holy Spirit Con-
vent, and with her, I really saw with my own eyes
paupers dying because they had no medicines.

Paupers go to government hospitals and are given
prescriptions. However, the doctor would tell them to
buy the medicines they need. But they have no money;
they just depend on the limited charity of other people
while the government has all the resources at its
command.

The second objection to my proposal is based on the
need for big funding. I am a teacher of taxation in dif-
ferent schools. Madam President. Pardon me for saying
that the procedure of tax collection in the Philippines is
very defective. An example is the residence tax. I know
many people who are rich and who own landholdings
yet they pay only PI. Likewise, when they file income
tax returns, they falsify the amounts paid as residence
tax in said returns. I call the attention of Commissioner
Bienvenido Tan, who is the present Commissioner of the

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

121

BIR. The government can impose a one-peso additional
residence tax which can be termed as Residence Tax E
or D. The government can raise funds through the sale
of postage stamps as was done under the Anti-TB Stamp
Law. The Anti-TB Stamp Law generates millions of
pesos every year. Also, the government can tap private
resources and invite the help of socially conscious
corporations, like the San Miguel Corporation, the
Ayala Corporation and others. It can also impose special
levies. Likewise, the government has many sources while
we, private individuals who are willing to help the
paupers, have limited resources.

I remember Senator Diokno telling me: “Pepe, please
do something about the poor. Your Constitution must
not only be nationalistic and must not only be pro-
people but must be pro-poor.” While we talk. Madam
President, of fighting for the rights of people, we forget
to talk of people fighting for their lives because of
poverty brought about by maladministration, antipathy
and indifference on the part of the government. So 1 ask
that the members of the Committee and the Members of
this Commission be magnanimous. In the words of Jose
Maria Escriva: “Magnanimity connotes largeness of

heart wherein many can find refuge.” Let us not forget
the anguish of the poor. For the information of the
body, Commissioner Tan has told me she will let her
heart rule over her head by voting for this amendment.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I really sympa-
thize with Commissioner Nolledo. As a matter of fact, it
is a big struggle to actually put this in the provision.
That would have a lot of implications and we would like
to prevent the people being raised to a high level of
aspiration only to be frustrated because of the inability
of the present health care system to provide free
medical care. That is why we settled for affordable or
minimum cost. As a matter of fact, with the present
administration, there are efforts to really address the
problem of the paupers. In the City of Manila, the
Ministry of Health is zeroing in on this particular
problem.

So, we are preparing a Constitution that is not just
going to be relevant for this year or next but within this
decade. We are preparing a Constitution that will be for
the next generations. We hope that people will already
learn how to be more conscious of health promotion
and disease prevention. In addition, we really do not
want to promote mendicancy.

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. Madam President.

MR. COLAYCO. Madam President.

MR. NOLLEDO. I think Commissioner Colayco has
something to say.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, may the Commit-
tee be given a chance to reply so that there will be order.
After the Committee gives its reply, then perhaps the

proponent and others who may support him can also
give their comments.

MR. COLAYCO. Madam President, what I have to
say I think will help the Committee respond. I would
like to give actual cases why this proposal of Com-
missioner Nolledo can be considered an imperative. We
have had occasions, particularly my wife, to bring poor
people to the Philippine General Hospital in Manila, and
the case is always that when medicines are needed, they
are told to buy these at the drug stores outside the
hospital. Now, these drug stores right in front of the
Philippine General Hospital sell medicines at exorbitant
prices.

The poor people who go to the Philippine General
Hospital need every help that our government can ex-
tend. We know that the government allots a big sum of
money for the purchase of medicines and drugs which
are necessary. I do not see why this allotment cannot
cover the medicines which are called for in most cases
being attended to in government hospitals. To my sur-
prise, it has always been the case that whatever the
medicine may be, whatever the sickness may be —
sometimes even simple fever - people are referred to
commercial drug stores to buy their medicines.

I, therefore, support 100 percent the proposal of
Commissioner Nolledo.

MS. QUESADA. Will Commissioner Nolledo please
state his amendment.

MR. NOLLEDO. Since the word “paupers” has
attained an established legal meaning, the amendment
will read as follows: THE STATE SHALL EXTEND
FREE MEDICAL CARE TO PAUPERS. Paupers are
those who have no source of livelihood or their sources
of income are just enough to make their body and soul
together. They really have no money. We cannot talk of
affordable cost with respect to paupers. The State must
exercise its parens patriae role. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that an additional sentence?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, an additional sentence to
Section 13.

MR. DA VIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. May I introduce an amendment to the
proposal of Commissioner Nolledo. It will not be a new
sentence but after the word “cost,” delete “with
priority for the needs of the UNDERPRIVILEGED, the
sick, women and children, aged and disabled” and in
lieu thereof insert AND WHENEVER NECESSARY,
FOR FREE ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDERPRIVI-
LEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED, so it will read:

122

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

“affordable cost, AND WHENEVER NECESSARY,
FOR FREE ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDERPRIVI-
LEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED.”

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, it seems to me
that Commissioner Davide’s amendment will also
destroy the essence of the Committee amendments. It
will expand the scope. I am talking only of paupers —
those who have no sources of livelihood. The term
“underprivileged” may cover those who are underem-
ployed who may be able to afford medicines. I regret
I cannot accept the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo does not
accept the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide.

Commissioner Bacani is recognized.

clear in the explanatory note on page 3, that there
should be medical care to the paupers.

So, that is the sense and the objective of the Com-
mittee. However, we cannot put it in black and white in
the Constitution, otherwise it becomes an absolute
mandate. And if the State would be unable to give free
medical care for millions of reasons, for which it should
not be blamed, the people will be disappointed and
frustrated, and this might complicate matters.

So, suppose the proposed amendment of Com-
missioner Bacani becomes unattainable, what will
happen? After all, the term “affordable cost” does not
necessarily have to mean cash. It could mean that these
people could pay with their services. We have a lot oT
self-help programs. So, if these paupers cannot afford to
pay cash, perhaps their relatives can render services to
various health clinics.

BISHOP BACANI. May I propose a change in the
wording of the clause which rriight not render necessary
anymore the addition of a new sentence. It will read as
follows: “. . . IT SHALL ADOPT an integrated and
comprehensive APPROACH TO health DEVELOP-

essential goods, HEALTH and
OTHER social services WITHIN THE REACH OF all
Hb citizens ...” Then we continue on with the others.

These are details which could be left to the Ministry
of Health or to the government to implement. But for
us to specifically state in the Constitution that every-
thing is going to be free is very dangerous. Anyway,
the intent of this Commission and that of the Commit-
tee, as articulated in the explanatory note, is as much
as possible to give free medical services, particularly
to the paupers.

THE PRE^DENT. We still have to dispose of Com
missioner Nolledo’s amendment first.

wm President, if the Committe.

that th? ni,* and with the understandinj

L shouMT ™ ^EACH” would meai

3ble to afford, the:
thpn T medical care by the government

Bacani the amendment of Commissione

mitt^ President, may the Com

e e given a chance to articulate its thoughts?

welfL^ate^We' do‘‘r, '

mendicancv Wp a ^ constitutionaliZ(

people onfy to be *let dow

blamed for it. ^ because we will all b(

would wish to give ^ow much the Stab

paupers and to all the noor t services to all th(
it could, it would. ^ so. But i

Commissioner Ouesada h^c
with respect to this section on he’Sth"*
think that anybody here has reaUyl^e
and the work, with aU the order that he has, the wt
that Commissioner Quesada has done her job. It is ver

MS. QUESADA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. Because of my sympathy to this
particular cause, would Commissioner Nolledo be
amenable to introducing the term PAUPERS after
“the needs of the” so that it reads “with priority for
the needs of the PAUPERS, the UNDERPRIVILEGED,
the sick, women and children, aged and disabled,
the understanding that the health care system shall
provide free medical care services for these paupers who
cannot afford such services that will entitle them to the
right to health and the right to life.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I am deeply
grateful to Commissioner Quesada, but because of the
existence of the term “affordable cost,” I think there
will really be complications.

I recommend that we adopt the suggestion of Com-
missioner Bernas, Madam President. We are not creating
a welfare state here, that is why we are concentrating
the privilege only to paupers. Instead of saying “THE
STATE SHALL EXTEND,” we will put THE STATE
SHALL ENDEAVOR TO EXTEND FREE MEDICAL
CARE TO PAUPERS.

The word “ENDEAVOR” as suggested by Com-
missioner Bernas will water down a little bit the provi-
sion in the sense that the State shall try its best to
extend free medical care to paupers.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

123

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I think we would
like this to be thrown to the body for a vote. The Com-
mittee would not be united in its stand.

MR. NOLLEDO. I will submit to the body.

MS. QUESADA. I personally accept but I cannot
speak for the entire Committee.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank tlie Commissioner very
much for her sympathy.

MR. RAMA. I move that we vote on the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote first on Commissioner
Nolledo’s proposed amendment.

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to include my friend.
Reverend Father Benias, as a coauthor because the word
“ENDEAVOR” changed the meaning substantially.

THE PRESIDENT. May we have the Commissioner’s
proposed amendment.

MR. NOLLEDO. It reads: THE STATE SHALL EN-
DEAVOR TO EXTEND FREE MEDICAL CARE TO
PAUPERS. I think that is reasonable enough.

MS. QUESADA. The Commissioner has convhiced
the Committee. I think the Committee accepts that
reformulation.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank the Commissioner very
much and may God bless her.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you.

MR. BENGZON. Before anything else. Madam
President, I move that this position paper prepared
by Commissioner Quesada be integrated into the record
in to to. *

MS. QUESADA. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion of Commissioner
Bengzon is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner
Rosario Braid seeks recognition. I ask that she be recog-
nized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, I find
Commissioner Quesada’s paper enlightening and com-

prehensive but I would like to put also on record that in
an earlier conversation between Minister Pardo de
Tavera and Minister Bengzon, both have indicated one
problem that, although implied here, has not been
stressed; that is, the services are available but the people
are indifferent and passive in the acceptance of these
services. As noted, in the immunization program,
although immunization is available, one out of two
acceptors does not continue the immunization program.
Both Ministers have indicated that a refocusing of their
program would put emphasis on education and at-
titudinal transformation. That is why they have ex-
pressed concern with the mass media and all types of
information that would effect the transformation of
attitudes and passivity. This is one.

The other concern is that in this decade where
voluntarism is the model and where there is an attempt
to really move towards the self-reliant use of backyard
farming, backyard gardening, indigenous health and
indigenous medicines, I would like to highlight the need
for indigenous health resources and self-reliance. While
we accept that for many years there will be focus on
delivery of services, we would also like to highlight the
equal importance of developing self-reliance because
the indigenous and local resources are there.

The third pomt has to do with Section 14 which is
the need for an even distribution or regional distribution
of health personnel. As statistics would show and I am
sure that Commissioner Quesada would bear me out,
there are adequate rural health workers totalling more
than 92,000 and there is a total national ratio of 1 : 70 in
the population, but there is uneven regional distribution
of health workers.

MR. BENGZON. May we, therefore, have the Com-
missioner’s proposed amendment.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes. The proposed amend-

ment to Section 13 would retain everything that Com-
missioner Quesada has submitted, except that I have
pruned it down to 40 words which says: The State

shall promote the right to HEALTH AND SHALL
adopt a comprehensive APPROACH to health DE-
VELOPMENT, make essential social services available
to aU citizens PARTICULARLY the UNDERPRIVIL-
EGED, at affordable cost AND ENCOURAGE SELF-
RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS
HEALTH RESOURCES. This is for Section 13.

MS. QUESADA. Can we respond for every section
and for every proposed amendment?

We would like to assure Commissioner Rosario Braid
that the concept of self-reliance and the use of indi-
genous health resources are already integrated in the
term comprehensive and integrated approach.” We just
did not want to single out all these components of such
an integrated and comprehensive approach to health
development. Otherwise, we will miss out some of the
important principles undergirding this approach.

*See Appendix

124

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

So, self-reliance is an objective where a primary
health care program addresses itself to make people take
care of their own health or the country to become self-
reliant. Actually, it is encompassed in the explanatory
note as is the meaning of integrated and comprehen-
sive approach.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Thank you.

But using also the philosophy of the Committee in
underscoring important concepts, I thought we could
adopt this and use the word “underprivileged” to mean
“the sick, women and children, aged and disabled,” so
that instead of mentioning all the beneficiaries, we
would only use the word UNDERPRIVILEGED. I
would like to emphasize SELF-RELIANCE rather than
mere delivery of social services.

And so, I would appeal to the Commissioner to in-
clude the concept of self-reliance because as we know,
we are very rich in resources such as herbal medicines.
I think there is a comprehensive documentation of
herbal medicines and local indigenous foods and I would
like to emphasize their utilization.

So, if the Committee would not accept, I would like
to throw this to the body.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair suspends the session for
two minutes to afford Commissioner Rosario Braid time
to confer with the members of the Committee on the
word SELF-RELIANCE.”

It was 10:32 a.m.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. After the word “UNDER-
PRIVILEGED,” Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner proposes to
eliminate the rest?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes, Madam President, but
to insert instead the phrase “AND ENCOURAGE SELF-
RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS
HEALTH RESOURCES.”

THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Commit-
tee?

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, Commissioner Bacani is
recognized.

BISHOP BACANI. May I ask that if we should vote
on this, we should vote first on the deletion o e
words that the Commissioner proposes to delete.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that acceptable to the
tee that we vote first on the proposed deletion o ^ e
words “the sick, women and children and disable on
Section 13?

MR. BENGZON. Yes, we will vote first on tha^
motion to delete before we can insert the propos
amendment.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I just like to
clarify the enumeration.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10.36 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session was resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com-
missioner Rosario Braid be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized to restate her proposed amendment. Is it an
entire substitution or just an insertion of certain words?

braid. It will just be inse
nhrasM nf ^ ^^uik I will go along and use i

Sk wnm ^"""""'^lioner Quesada but eliminate
sick women and children, aged and disabled” a

would belong to the underprivileged, and thei

the phrase AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELL
THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS HEALTF
SOURCES.”

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, please proceed.

MS. QUESADA. I would like to clarify ^

enumerated the underprivileged — “the sick, women a
children, aged and disabled.” These are the groups we
consider as the special groups with special health pr
lems that have to be addressed to by the healt care
system - the sick, particularly because if they
addressed to, then they die; the women and children
because of the nature of women, especially their mater-
nal functions, their needs; and the children will have to
be addressed too. The aged and the disabled are just as
much disadvantaged because we do not have the special
services and attention given to these special groups. In
the health system, we already recognized these groups as
those that would have special needs and singled them
out to provide the basis for future legislations.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is

recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Where shall this be inserted after
the word “disabled”?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. I have no objection about
mentioning all these beneficiaries, but in the spirit of

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

125

brevity and in order that it could accommodate the
phrase “PROMOTE SELF-RELIANCE THROUGH
INDIGENOUS RESOURCES,” I thought the phrase
could be deleted.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, it is not just a
matter of giving in and accepting one concept or ano-
ther. As I explained earlier, I took a lot of time explain-
ing the intention of this provision so that we will not
single out some of the concepts that are already in-
herent in such an approach, otherwise we will miss out
some of the other components, like when we talk of
“self-reliance” and “indigenous.” These are parts of the
comprehensive approach to the health development that
we are addressing ourselves to.

MR. BENGZON. Can we vote now. Madam Pres-
ident?

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog-
nized.

MR. PADILLA. May I make a suggestion that the last
two lines of Section 13 be simplified to read: “the needs
of the UNDERPRIVILEGED SICK” and eliminate all
the rest and then add the proposed amendment of Com-
missioner Rosario Braid. In other words, we just say
“the UNDERPRIVILEGED SICK,” instead of the
“UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, women and chil-
dren ...”

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I would like to
respond to the suggestion or the proposal of Com-
missioner Padilla to use just the term “underprivileged.”
The reason why we put a comma (,) is that we did not
want to give the impression that we are just interested
in the people who are sick. Health care is also provided
those people who are well, and we would like to provide
a comprehensive health program that will address itself
to the healthy population so that they will not get sick.
By saying the “underprivileged sick,” we are really refer-
ring only to the sick. So, we placed a comma (,) because
we talk then about the people who need special protec-
tion, special health promotion — the preventive aspects
of the health care program.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes that this has
been sufficiently discussed.

Those who are in favor of deleting the phrase “the
sick, women and children, aged and disabled” from
Section 13, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised
their hand.)

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Sever-
al Members raised their hand.)

The results show 3 votes in favor and 16 against; the
amendment is lost.

The next amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid
is to add after the word “UNDERPRIVILEGED” the
phrase “AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE
THROUGH THE USE OF INDIGENOUS HEALTH
RESOURCES.” This has not been accepted by the
Committee as explained by Commissioner Quesada.

Those in favor of the second amendment of Com-
missioner Rosario Braid, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Sever-
al Members raised their hand.)

The results show 14 votes in favor and 15 against; the
amendment is lost.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide, is this still
on the same Section 13?

MR. DAVIDE. The same section. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDE. On the first line, insert after
“HEALTH” the words OF ALL THE PEOPLE, and
then delete the words “right to,” so that the first line
will read: “The State shall protect and promote the
health OF ALL THE PEOPLE.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. We find that the word “right”
should be expressly stated in this particular provision.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I have read the
report of the Committee on Preamble, National Terri-
tory and Declaration of Principles. The same sentence
relating to health is found in the Declaration of Princi-
ples. So, to be consistent with the Declaration of
Principles, I think the matter of the right to health is
already included when we say that the State shall
protect and promote the health of all the people. It is
conceded that that is a right, but it will emphasize the
fact that this obligation is to all the people.

MS. QUESADA. Yes. But still we would like to retain
the word right ’ because this has a special meaning now
to the direction of the provision of health care. We
would like this expressed because there are many viola-

126

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

tions of this human right. One might be a patient one
day and discover that providers of services do not
recognize his right to health care and may not provide
him the tender loving care that he deserves because they
do not understand fully and appreciate that this is
already a right that has been enshrined in the Constitu-
tion.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I will agree to the
nondeletion of “right to” but I reserve my right to
amend the corresponding provision in the Article on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies.

MS. QUESADA. Yes, we would welcome that.

MR. DAVIDE. But I insist on the inclusion after the
word “HEALTH” of the phrase OF ALL THE PEOPLE.

MS. QUESADA. We accept.

THE PRESIDENT. So, what is the decision of Com-
missioner Davide?

“HE amendment is only to add aftei

HEALTH the words OF ALL THE PEOPLE.

MS. QUESADA. On second thought. Madam Pres
ident, would that not contribute to more verbiage be

^ mention here of making all th(
services available to all citizens?

President, I will have a subse

sav here is, if we onb

y right to health, whose right is it?

QUESADA. Is it not understood that when w(
citLns?”^ health, we refer to the right of al

MR. DAVIDE. I suggested OF ALL THE PEOPLE
ause in the succeeding sentence, only “to all citi-
zens” IS mentioned.

MR. BENGZON. Primarily, to every citizen here in
IS country, to the Filipinos and, of course, to every-

o y, regardless of race, creed or whatever. That is
already understood.

MR. DAVIDE. So, I will not insist on the amendment
on the first line but instead on placing the words PEO-
PLE in lieu of “citizens” on the third from the last line.

MS. QUESADA. We accept. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment of Commissioner Davide which has
been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. DAVIDE. On the same line where the substitu-
tion is made, I seek for the deletion of the words “with
priority for the needs of,” and in lieu thereof, we say,
ESPECIALLY TO.

THE PRESIDENT. Is this acceptable?

MS. QUESADA. Yes, Madam President, we accept.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment which has been accepted by le
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amen
ment is approved.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Rodrigo be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I sugpst a very
simple amendment on line 3 after the word “shall,

this is to place a comma (,) after “shall” and insert
LAW then a comma (,). The amendment now rea s.
“shall BY LAW, make essential goods ...”

MS. QUESADA. I understand that there is a pro
posal that would probably respond to this particu ar
concern of inserting the words BY LAW by Com-
missioner Ople. I' think the proposal is really to prevent
the possibility of raising hopes. Would the Commissioner
be amenable to the proposition of Commissioner Ople.

MR. RODRIGO. I want to hear it.

is silent- h t point is, in the first sentence

7pns ” <5 second sentence it is “to all c

countrv The classify certain persons in

second sentence relates only to all citize

Commissioner want
amend the second sentence where the use of “all c
zens could be changed to “ALL THE PEOPLE”?

MR. DAVIDE. Gladly.

MS. QUESADA. We accept.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, would Commissioner
Rodrigo at this point consider accepting an amendment
to his amendment so that instead of “BY LAW,” the
word ENDEAVOR TO is substituted for it. This is
actually indicated in a proposed amendment that I had
submitted earlier to the Committee, and the reason for
saying ENDEAVOR TO is precisely to put the expecta-
tions and hopes of the people who will read this provi-
sion at a more realizable level and which also means that
we eliminate the expectation that the government itself
will provide all of these goods and services. The health
development program will endeavor to make all of these

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

127

goods and services available at affordable cost. With that
change it becomes imminently implementable at once,
without having to project to a long-run future when one
has to wait for vast resources to be available to finance a
national health insurance program of the kind which
England, for example, is now reconsidering because of
the unaffordable costs.

MR. RODRIGO. The meaning of “BY LAW” is not
exactly the same as the meaning of the words “EN-
DEAVOR TO,” but between provincemates, I yield to
Commissioner Ople.

MR. OPLE. Thank you.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we accept the pro-
posed amendment to insert “ENDEAVOR TO” after
“SHALL” on the third line.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment which has been accepted by the
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend-
ment's approved.

MR. OPLE. I have just one more amendment. Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. OPLE. On the same section, I suggest that we
end the sentence at “affordable cost” which is on the
third line from the bottom of the official text, and then
follow it up with: “THERE SHALL BE PRIORITY
for the needs of the underprivileged, the
sick women and children, THE aged and THE disabled.”
The' reason for suggesting this is that the priority for the
needs of the underprivileged ought not to be read in the
context alone of essential goods and services, but this
should be a priority of the entire integrated and compre-
hensive approach. I think that makes the meaning clear,
there shall be special programs in the future to imple-
ment this priority for the needs of the underprivileged,
the sick, women and children and, may I say, let us use
the standard term “THE aged and THE disabled,” in-
stead of merely “aged and disabled.”

When we cut that sentence and establish a new
priority for the needs of the underprivileged, it is a
mandate of Congress to devise a special program under
an integrated and comprehensive health care system for
these underprivileged classes.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we have just
approved the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide cutting down on the words “with priority for.”
But this means a restyling. Would the honorable Com-
missioner be amenable to giving this to the Committee
on Style to decide on whether it should be a separate
sentence?

MR. OPLE. This is not solely a question of style
because with this we are limiting the priority for the
underprivileged when we cut the sentence and reserve
wholly a new sentence for the underprivileged. Then we
are, as I said earlier, making their priority coextensive,
not only with goods and services but with the entire
range of the integrated and comprehensive health care.

THE PRESIDENT. What is the proposal of Com-
missioner Ople?

MR. OPLE. As I said, end the sentence with the
words “affordable cost,” then add this new sentence
instead: “THERE SHALL BE PRIORITY FOR THE
NEEDS OF THE UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick,
women and children, THE aged and THE disabled.”

MS. QUESADA. The Committee accepts.

MR. OPLE. Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
latest amendment which has been accepted by the
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend-
ment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I should like to
present an amendment. There is a health program which,

I believe, is very important and might be emphasized in
Section 13, and this is on preventive medicine. It is
important because it could save the country millions or
hundreds of millions of pesos; it could save millions of
lives from sickness and death. I think it should be em-
phasized, although it is contained in the explanation,
that, as Commissioner Quesada has stated, many of the
people who will read the Constitution would not have
the time to research and find out the explanation of
these provisions.

May I just mention one example. Madam President. I
have a friend who is one of the top doctors of the Lung
Center of Imelda Marcos, and I asked him, “How much
money was spent to build this Lung Center?” And he
said, “A hundred and fifty million pesos.” And I said,
“Is that money well-spent to cure lung diseases? ” He
said, “It is foolish money because instead of building a
hospital or stressing on cure, this money should have
gone into inoculations of millions of Filipino infants,
and saving the lives of these infants through the simple
process of inoculating them with BCG” - I think Com-
missioner Quesada knows about this. According to the
statistics, the no. 3 killer in the country is tuberculosis.
In other countries, tuberculosis has been wiped out
because of inoculation. Were the Pi 50 million, which
was spent for curative program, spent for preventive
medicine, we could have saved untold sufferings, many
lives and millions of pesos for the government.

Madam President, another point more important than
the phrase affordable to the people” is whether this
program is affordable to the government. In other

128

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

words, the question is whether the government has the
money to be able to render the services and thereby save
millions or hundreds of millions of pesos by emphasiz-
ing preventive medicine. So, I wonder if it would be
good to stress this by inserting the words STRESSING
ON PREVENTIVE MEDICINE after the phrase
“essential goods, HEALTH and OTHER social ser-
vices.”

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, I really appreciate
the interest of Commissioner Rama on the preventive
aspect of health care. As a matter of fact, I am a pro-
ponent of preventive health care. But as I said earlier,
and as I explained to Commissioner Rosario Braid, if we
single out this element of a comprehensive approach to
health development, it might bog us down in the details
of what could very well be part of the thrust not even
of legislation, but of health programs. But I think it is
very useful that we put on record that the services
should provide or should stress on health promotion,
which I included as part of the explanatory note of
comprehensive approach. Section 13 (4) states

that health services provided should include health
promotion (with emphasis on health education), disease
prevention or specific protection, such as immunization.
We did not single out TB because that is only one of
the causes of mortality and morbidity.

MR. RAMA. And so, it is the sense of the Committee
that there must be special emphasis on preventive
medicine.

MS. QUESADA. Yes, we would like to put on
record that the future health delivery system should

respond to the mandate for more prevention rather than
for cure.

Yes, I think that is a good suggestion, so
I will withdraw the amendment.

BISHOP BACANI. Would the Commissioner not
deem it advisable to say instead “HEALTH SERVICES
and OTHER social services available”?

MS. QUESADA. The understanding is that health is
part of the social services. There will be the social ser-
vice of education, housing, employment, security. So,
we just singled out “HEALTH” because we cannot have
the state of health unless we provide health services, but
which is not alone responsible for man or people attain-
ing a state of health.

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, but what I mean is, the
interest of clarity might make it necessary that we say
instead “HEALTH SERVICES and OTHER social ser-
vices available.” I have read this part twice, three times,
and it was only later on that I realized the need to make
this clear. So, may I suggest that we add the word SER-
VICES after “HEALTH.”

MS. QUESADA. I accept the amendment. Madam
President.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I submit that
amendment which the Committee has accepted.

MR. SUAREZ. Where are we going to insert the
amendment?

BISHOP BACANI. Insert the word SERVICES ^
between the words “HEALTH” and “and OTHER
which appear on the fourth line.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. In other words, the phrase will
now read “health SERVICES and OTHER socia ser
vices available.”

BISHOP BACANI. Yes, Madam President.

MS. QUESADA. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com-
missioner Bacani be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. Perhaps the first amendm(

^ ^ot have to be done at

if I am clarified on certain points.

h APPROACH '

. £¥y,^ir^^^ENT WHICH shall make essen

goods, HEALTH and OTHER social services availabl
does the word “HEALTH” qualify the word “services

MS. QUESADA. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. The Committee accepts. Madam
President.

BISHOP BACANI. So, the Committee has accepted,
Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment of Commissioner Bacani which has
been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog-
nized .

MR. PADILLA. On that same line 4, I was thinking
to change the words “goods, health services and other

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

129

social services” to ESSENTIAL MEDICINES, HEALTH
DRUGS AND HOSPITAL SERVICES. Just a sugges-
tion because when I read “goods,” I had the impression
that it includes not only vegetables, fish, meat; these
are all goods, but I think what we should make available
are medicines and health drugs.

The term “and OTHER social services” is also very
vague. What we need are hospital services because when
a person is seriously ill and he cannot be an outpatient,
he has to have some hospital bed and hospital care.

MS. QUESADA. Yes. This particular statement of
goods does not just refer to health goods, like medicines
or the things that we find in the hospitals. This relates
now to the understanding that the state of health can-
not be achieved if there are other goods which are
not made available and affordable. That is why the
comprehensive and integrated nature of this approach to
health development takes cognizance of the need to
interrelate with other social services. Thus, we did not
single out just food or drugs but it would mean also the
other essential goods which man needs so that he can
attain good health.

MR. PADILLA. Yes. But when one is not healthy —
when he has a headache, heartache, other aches - what
he needs is medicine. Of course, to have good physical
and mental health one needs more than medicine, like
good food and substantial proteins. But with regard to
health care it is the people who go to the hospital or to
a doctor, but the common complaint is that the medi-
cines they prescribe are very costly. The immediate need
of the patient is to be able to buy the medicines or the
health drugs and, perhaps, a hospital accommodation.

However, I will not insist if the Committee does not
look with favor on this suggestion.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, health care is
really much broader than just the state of illness. For
example, when we talk about essential goods, it would
refer to goods such as the building of bridges so that
people will not get sick of schistosomiasis; it will be
providing the other conditions that will enable people to
maintain health. So, that is why it is the total health
development, including prevention, the putting up of
toilets, of water facilities, mosquito nets, and all those
that would prevent diseases. It is really going into the
details of health development.

I suppose that with this understanding of the holism,
the broadness of this concept of health, we realize that
it is not just being sick or utilizing goods offered in a
hospital, but also the goods which are offered in the
communities that are considered.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, if Commissioner
Padilla is no longer insisting, may I pursue a second
amendment?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

BISHOP BACANI. I do not know whether this is a
matter of style, but there is some reason for the change
I wish to propose. After saying “There shall be priority
for the needs of the underprivileged, the sick, women
and children, the aged and the disabled,” may I suggest
that the order should be “There shall be priority for the
needs of the underprivileged, the sick, THE AGED AND
THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.” May I
explain the reason. All of the previous ones, except the
last two, necessarily suffer from some disadvantage or
infirmity; while the women and children, though they
may have special needs, do not necessarily suffer from
any infirmity or disadvantage.

MS. QUESADA. Yes, Madam President, we accept.

BISHOP BACANI. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. May we ask Commissioner Bacani
to read his amendment again.

BISHOP BACANI. “There shall be priority for the
needs of the underprivileged, the sick, THE AGED AND
THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.”

THE PRESIDENT. Do we eliminate “women and
children”?

BISHOP BACANI. We put them at the last. Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed. Commissioner
Rodrigo.

MR. RODRIGO. I have a special predilection for
women but it is precisely because of this that I find a
jarring note in this enumeration. Why should we place
women, in general, in the same class with the sick, the
aged, the disabled, the underprivileged? Do women, in
general, include the women who are healthy, wealthy
and wise?

I thought I could remedy this in the Committee on
Style but I do not think I can because it is not just a
matter of form. In the case of men, only the men who
are sick come under this — only those who are disabled
and underprivileged. But then we have placed women,
in general, in the same class with the sick, the aged and
the disabled.

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, it may sound jarring
and a bit inelegant but apparently women have the ex-
clusive monopoly of maternal functions and for that
reason, they need special health care services and atten-
tion.

130

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. MONSOD. Madam President. SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. RODRIGO. If the women do not see anything ™E PRESIDENT. The session is suspended,
jarring in it, I do not mean to be more popish than the It was 11:15 a.m.

Pope.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. I was just wondering if we can read
this in connection with the Section on Women because I
guess we are applying ourselves to working conditions
and to working women. Is it possible to integrate this?

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Quesada
say?

MS. QUESADA. The Section on Women refers to
working women, but we are referring to women all over
including those who may not be working in industries
but whose health care needs have to be addressed to

because of their biological reproductive maternal
functions.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:26 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

Before we suspended the session, we were discussing
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bacani to
transpose “women and children.” Am I correct? Was the
amendment to place “women and children” at the end
of the sentence after “disabled” accepted by the
Committee?

MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.

Is there any other pending amendment?

PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog

nized.

Si^MIEOTO. This is just a clarification ad
dressed to Commissioner Quesada.

THE PRESIDENT. Is it also about women?

MR. SARMIENTO. Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. SARMIENTO. The use of the word “women
IS very road. It would cover working women, wome
w 0 ^e rich, who are wealthy, who are poor. Since w
ave t e suggestion from Commissioner Monsod to lin
provision on working women, can we sa
WUKKING women and children”?

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Monsod
be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we read our
proposed last sentence per the Ople amendment: “There
shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged
sick, the ELDERLY AND DISABLED, AND WOMEN
AND CHILDREN.” In other words, we are now de-
fining sick women and children, elderly and disabled,
who are entitled to special or priority attention because
of the word “underprivileged.”

MS. QUESADA. No. We are also referring to women
w o stay at home, those who are the child bearers, or
the women who are not found in industry.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no more
proponents of any amendmentdo Section 13, so I move
that we take a vote on the whole section.

intent in using the
women is to cover all women?

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Quesada please
read now the whole Section 1 3 as amended.

MS. QUESADA. Yes.

MR. RAMA. Madam Presiripnt
proponents of amendments to Section 1?.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we have-
one mmute to try to reconcile the different ideas t
have been propounded?

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall protect and pro-
mote the right to HEALTH. To this end, IT SHALL
adopt an integrated and comprehensive APPROACH
to health DEVELOPMENT WHICH shall endeavor to
make essential goods, HEALTH services and OTHER
social services available to all THE PEOPLE at afford-
able cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the
underprivileged sick, the ELDERLY AND DISABLED,

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

131

AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THE STATE SHALL
ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE FREE MEDICAL CARE
TO THE PAUPERS.”

MR. FOZ. Madam President, may I just ask one
question?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. Would it not be better if we put the term
“women and children” ahead of all the others?

THE PRESIDENT. There is a suggestion that we put
“women and children” ahead. Is this acceptable to the
Committee?

MS. QUESADA. No, Madam President, we will retain
the Bacani proposal which places “women and children”
at the end of the enumeration.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Those who are m favor of Section
13 as read by the Chairman of the Committee, please
raise their hand. (All Members raised their hand.)

Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 38 votes in favor and none against;
Section 13, as amended, is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Davide be recognized to present an amend-
ment to Section 14.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, this is a very simple
amendment. I suggest to insert the words AND CON-
TROL between the words “monitoring” and “system.”

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, we are consolidat-
ing Sections 14 and 15; perhaps, if we state our con-
solidation, then the Gentleman can introduce his
amendments.

MR. DAVIDE. I am willing to defer consideration.

THE PRESIDENT. Let us hear from the Committee.

MS. QUESADA. The reformulation would be as
follows: “THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN AN EF-
FECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING SYS-
TEM, APPROPRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DE-
VELOPMENT AND RESEARCH, AND A SPECIAL
BODY FOR DISABLED PERSONS TO ENABLE
THEIR INTEGRATION TO THE MAINSTREAM OF
SOCIETY.” So we have combined Sections 14 and 15.

THE PRESIDENT. Is that clear to the Commissioners?

MR. DAVIDE. May we have copies of the reformula-
tion?

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Quesada please
repeat slowly.

MS. QUESADA. It still retains most of Section 14:

“THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE
FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING SYSTEM, APPRO-
PRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
AND RESEARCH, AND A SPECIAL BODY FOR DIS-
ABLED PERSONS TO ENABLE THEIR INTEGRA-
TION TO THE MAINSTREAM OF SOCIETY.”

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I know the purpose of
lumping together the provision on a special body for
disabled persons and the provision on a food and drug
monitoring system for which reason we deleted the im-
portant words “for the rehabilitation, self-development
and self-reliance of the disabled towards their total in-
tegration to the mainstream of society”? I find that
if we lump together this provision on disabled persons
with the provision on food and drug monitoring system,
we dilute , the special emphasis on the concern of the
State for disabled persons and, therefore, while I would
not mind lumping the two sections together, I would
request that the provision on disabled persons be con-
sidered another paragraph.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we request
a suspension of the session.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 11:34 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:41 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

Commissioner Quesada is recognized.

MS. QUESADA. Due to the strong reactions to the
new formulations, the Committee has decided to retain
the original sections. Section 14, however, will contain
some insertions of new ideas, and this would now read:
“SECTION 14. The State shall maintain an effective
food and drug monitoring AND CONTROL system and
UNDERTAKE appropriate health manpower develop-

132

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986

ment and research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUN-
TRY’S HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.”

This idea was introduced by Commissioners Regalado
and Davide.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. So, the first amendment, the insertion
of the words AND CONTROL after “monitoring,” is
accepted by the Committee.

MS. QUESADA. Yes.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, if we look at
the Explanatory Note prepared by Commissioner Quesa-
da, the use of the words “monitoring system” would
cover control and regulation. The sentence would read:
“SUCH MONITORING SYSTEM WOULD ADDRESS
ITSELF TO THE ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL ES-
SENTIAL DRUG LIST, THE USE OF GENERIC
NAMES, THE STRENGTHENING OF THE NATION-
AL FOOD AND DRUG REGULATORY MECHAN-
ISMS . . .” So I think the words “regulation” and
“control” are contemplated by the use of the words
“food and drug monitoring system.”

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, may I react?

THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may proceed.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
particular amendment?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will the proponent
entertain an amendment to his amendment?

MR. DAVIDE. May we hear the amendment?

MR. OPLE. In Ueu of “AND CONTROL,” would
Commissioner Davide consider REGULATORY?

• davide. No, Madam President; CONTROL
^ better because it will relate precisely to drug.

bo. It IS not just regulation of drug but control also of
drug.

MR. OPLE. I was hoping to put this in the following
context. For example, regulation would also include a
rnandate to appropriate government authorities to con-
sider, for example, the point raised earlier by Com-
missioner Rosario Braid about the use of indigenous
resources, say, the preference for generic drugs instead
of these very costly foreign labels; and if we have to
meet the standard of affordable cost, it may be necessa-
ry for the regulatory function of the government to take
vigorous steps, to overcome the resistance of the foreign
drug companies to the use of generic drugs which pro-
bably cuts down the cost immediately by one-half, if
not more. And so, regulation, monitoring and regulatory
system can actually have this context, instead of the

controlling abuses, including

mislabelling, I suppose.

MR. DAVIDE. Can we combine the two concents

“monitoring,- then add ,
words REGULATION OR CONTROL”?

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President
ment on regulation and control? ’

may I com-

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed,
Sarmiento.

Commissioner

MR. DAVIDE. This is merely an explanation but
it is not embodied in the text of the proposal. Inter-
pretations may be made later to instances merely of
monitoring but monitoring does not necessarily include
regulation or control. So, the language must be made
stronger to include regulation or control, especially that
we are talking, among others, of food, and especially
drugs. I really feel the necessity not only of the inser-
tion of CONTROL but also of including “REGULA-
TION” as explained by Commissioner Ople which I am
willing to accept.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I am willing to accept
the Davide amendment to my amendment provided it is
also understood that “REGULATION” and “CON-
TROL” include the power of the government to
regulate cartelized pricing of drugs especially by foreign
manufacturers.

MR. DAVIDE. That would be included.

MR. OPLE. I understand they often resort to this,
which will make it impossible for the promise made in
this section of the Article on Social Justice to make
available goods and services at affordable cost. If the
foreign drug manufacturers which dominate the drug
industry in the Philippines are allowed to resort to car-
telized pricing, that is to say fixing the prices at higher
levels behind the back of the government. . .

THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept the
inclusion of the words “CONTROL AND REGULA-
TION”?

MS. QUESADA. I understand. Madam President, that
the word “CONTROL” would now include the ideas of
regulation as proposed by Commissioner Ople, so we
will just use the word “CONTROL” to include regula-
tory mechanisms.

MR. DAVIDE. It will necessarily include regulation.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

133

MR. OPLE. Regulation will necessarily include con-
trol, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Ople insist on
his proposal to include the word “REGULATION”
aside from “CONTROL”?

MR. OPLE. The Davide amendment contemplated
the use of “REGULATION” and “CONTROL,” Madam
President.

tables would not be unhealthful because in vegetable-
growing, chemicals which may be disastrous to health
are already applied.

MR. SUAREZ. So, even in situations hke that, the
Gentleman contemplates that tlie government could
exercise monitoring and control?

MR. DAVIDE. Certainly, Madam President, because
the idea is the promotion of total health.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
The Committee only says “monitoring AND CON-
TROL.”

MS. QUESADA. Before we make a comment on that.
Commissioner Villacorta would like to clarify some
possible consequence of this control.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, while we
understand the contemplation of this phrase, “food and
drug monitoring AND CONTROL,” we would like to
put on record that this does not at all refer to the con-
trol of food distribution, intake or production.

MR. DAVIDE. That is also correct. Control here is to
determine whether this food is nutritious enough or
adequate or substandard. So, the government must con-
trol not the manufacturing, although there should be
some regulations in the manufacturing to see to it that it
wUl contribute to the promotion of health.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, it seems that the intent
of the Committee is better served by the more precise
term “REGULATION” which is usually the object of
monitoring. Monitoring is usually exercised on behalf of
a regulatory power of a competent authority of the
government; control can be susceptible to misinterpreta-
tion; while regulation is completely immune from being

misinterpreted.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

MR. SUAREZ. I thought the Gentleman was prin-
cipally referring to processed food?

MR. DAVIDE. No.

MR. OPLE. I support the wider interpretation given
by Commissioner Davide. He is correct. Does the
Gentleman know that although American bases authori-
ties are obligated by agreement or treaty to buy locally
sourced vegetables especially from Baguio, almost in-
evitably our vegetables are rejected at the gate of Clark
Field and Subic because of the allegation that the DDT
content is too high for their own health standards?

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we would like to
propose this compromise so we can cut down on the
words and still achieve the same meanings that both
Commissioners Davide and Ople have presented, and
that is to use the word REGULATORY. “The State
shall maintain an effective food and drug REGULA-
TORY system, to include the idea of monitoring,
control and regulation.

MR. DAVIDE. So, “monitoring” will be deleted?

MR. OPLE. That is acceptable to me. Madam Pres-
ident.

MR. DAVIDE. It is accepted.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the amendment is approved.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Just one point of clarification from
the Honorable Davide because the use of the word
“food” may be misinterpreted in the future. Is the
Gentleman referring to processed food?

MR. DAVIDE. Among others.

MR. SUAREZ. Not the raw food that we take like
vegetables?

MR. DAVIDE. The government may also impose
certain rules and regulations to see to it that these vege-

MR. OPLE. I have another amendment, if Com-
missioner Davide has already used his turn.

MR. DAVIDE. I have an amendment on the third
line. My proposal is to delete the word ^‘COUNTRY’S”
and after PROBLEMS,” insert the following' OF THE
PEOPLE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUN-
TRY.

THE PRESIDENT. How will it read then?

MR. DAVIDE. It reads as follows: “RESPONSIVE
TO THE HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS OF THE
PEOPLE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUN-
TRY.”

134

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. The idea of the Committee here is
not to bring in the development of the country, only
health needs and problems. That belongs to the section
on the national economy.

MR. DAVIDE. Not only that, Madam President. In
the proposed Article on Declaration of Principles, the
principal thrust of the development and promotion of
the health of the people is for socioeconomic de-
velopment. So, this is only to dovetail that particular
proposal.

from representatives of Mindanao that there are millions
in Mindanao, in the countryside, who live and die with-
out ever seeing a single doctor or a nurse. Although this
is probably an extreme example in the case of Minda-
nao, the fact that many Filipinos Live and die without
seeing a doctor reflects a nationwide reality outside of
the cities.

Therefore, I strongly urge the Committee, in the
interest of social justice, for those deprived of medical
care in the rural areas, to give a countervailing bias now
in this section so that the redressing of this imbalance in
health care for the rural areas, for the rural poor in par-
ticular, will be part of the mandate of the health section
of the Article on Social Justice.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President.

MR. MONSOD. No, we do not have to repeat in each
and every section social, political, economic and health
development and everything else because the whole
Constitution must be read in that context.

MR. DAVIDE. Then I will not insist on that par-
ticular proposal.

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President.

MR. BENGZON. May the Committee react first to
that amendment before any proposals are presented.
Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. May I propose an amendment at the very
end of the consolidated section.

THE PRESIDENT. It is not being consolidated any-

MS. QUESADA. No, it has been separated.

MR. OPLE. It has been separated again. Anyway, on
ection 14, after the very end of the present sentence
and research on health care problems,” please add the
followmg: AND CORRECT THE HISTORIC IM-

delivery of HEALTH CARE
TO THE RURAL AREAS.

May I explain briefly, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may proceed.

MR. OPLE. Thank you.

interpellations on this sub

of th^ ^ '^onld reflect the admis

1 ^ k rS'® Commissioner Quesada

tJip- hpalVh rarp disparity now existin

the health care services avaUable to the urban areas

She admi

that although we have a glut of nursing graduates
abroad, there are no takers among nurses and doc
for vacancies existmg in the rural health units of
country. The reason is that the countryside is too v
tractive for doctors and nurses. That is why we

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we have taken
into consideration the rationale behind the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Ople. We have actually
taken his proposed term - “TO UNDERTAKE APPRO-
PRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT” -
which would now encompass the need of redirecting the
health manpower development so that we can address
these resources to the needs of the country particularly
the rural poor. But we do not want to specify manpower
development as it would be only one development.

MR. OPLE. It is not only manpower development but
the whole range of services under the integrated and
comprehensive health care and development program.

MS. QUESADA. Yes, the concept of manpower de-
velopment being from production to utilization and
management, which includes the deployment and
distribution of the health manpower resource.

So, we are really addressing this redirection in the
manpower training and education to meet the needs of
our people, particularly the rural poor.

MR. BENGZON. We cannot accept the amendment.

MR. OPLE. The Committee does admit that this is a
very grave problem not only of health but also of social
justice. If this is correct and it rises to that gravity,
should it not deserve some explicit mention in this
section?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Madam President, may I be
recognized?

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

135

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID. Yes, I concur with Com-
missioner Ople. This is why I have an amendment to his
amendment and perhaps we could put it together.
After “research,” add the phrase AND ENSURE THE
EVEN REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH
PERSONNEL. I concur with Commissioner Ople
because statistics would show that only 30 percent of
the entire force of physicians are in the rural areas serv-
ing 70 percent of the population. I mentioned earlier
that although there are 92,000 rural health workers,
there is an uneven distribution in the country. So, with
this amendment, I strongly urge this concept of re-
dressing the imbalances through coming up with an
amendment, like that of Commissioner Ople and my
amendment, in the spirit of a more even regional dis-
tribution of health care services.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may the Commit-
tee reply?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod may pro-
ceed.

MR. MONSOD. I think the minutes of committee
meetings and the minutes of these discussions as well as
the explanation of Commissioner Quesada very clearly
say that the words in Section 13 already include the
concept that the Gentleman is stating. We are willing to
have these interpretations read into the Record in order
that the interpretation is not lost. However, we regret
that we cannot add these words because they are
already subsumed and included in the total concept of
the Committee. I believe Commissioner Ople is a
member of the Committee and he will recall that when
we were discussing this, he suggested that this was all
being considered already and we feel that it is not
necessary to add these words anymore.

MR. OPLE. If the intent is very clearly and empha-
tically recorded, I will go along with the Committee,
Madam President.

MR. MONSOD. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-
nized.

MR. SARMIENTO. My amendment. Madam Pres-
ident, is a simple amendment. It is an amendment by
addition on Section 14. After “shall,” add the words

ESTABLISH AND so that it shall read: “The State shall
ESTABLISH AND maintain an effective food and drug
regulatory system.”

This is a consequence of the amendment proposed by
Commissioner Davide and adopted by the Committee.

MS. QUESADA. We accept the amendment.

MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no more
proponents of amendments.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, there is indeed a pro-
posed amendment which should immediately follow
Section 14. With the indulgence of the Floor Leader,
may I state this proposed amendment now, in asso-
ciation with Commissioners Aquino, Sarmiento, Cal-
deron, Tingson and Rodrigo. It merely says: SECTION
15. THE CARE AND WELFARE OF THE ELDERLY
SHALL ENJOY STATE SUPPORT AND PROTEC-
TION.

May I explain briefly. Madam President?

The reason for this amendment is that throughout
the Article on Social Justice and also the Article on
Declaration of Principles, this Commission has already
acknowledged the fundamental entitlement to the pro-
tection of the State of various disadvantaged groups.
These include, of course, workers and peasants, women
at work, minors. That just about leaves out just one
more very important and strategic segment of the work
force that should be entitled to our protection. They are
the ones that have withdrawn from the work force
through retirement. There are eight million members of
the Social Security System, many of whom are attain-
ing the age of retirement. There are one million mem-
bers of the GSIS, many of whom are also attaining the
age of retirement. There is a nationwide clamor from all
of these retirees for the government to set right the
pension schemes for which they have contributed all of
their working lives but out of which they now get a
mere pittance.

I was in San Miguel, Bulacan the other day and some
of the government retirees spoke to me. They retired
about 10 years ago. They said 10 years ago, this P200
from the GSIS could still buy three sacks of rice. Today,
they get the same amount and this can hardly buy
a sack of rice. Of course, the retirees do not have
champions unlike those still enrolled in the active labor
force. Throughout the world, governments are now
moved by the advancing social morality of the age. They
are taking vigorous steps to redress the disadvantages for
the elderly , those who will retire from the work force.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

136

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986

THE PRESIDENT. Excuse me. May the Chair pro-
pound one question, if I can be allowed to propound
one question?

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. It is a great honor.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the veterans be included
because we have been receiving so many communica-
tions, hundreds of them, asking for the protection also
of the rights of veterans?

tradition of the family taking care of the elderly. We
recognize that the practice of the State taking care of
the elderly is a western tradition. But while the State
and government agencies may be able to take care of the
elderly, the elderly will die not from lack of care but
from a broken heart. I do not know that this provision
shall relate to that provision in the Article on Family
Rights.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

MR. OPLE. The veterans are included to the extent
that they are retirees of the government or of the
private sector and, therefore, are enrolled in the SSS or
in the GSIS.

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog-
nized.

MR. TINGSON. Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recog-
nized.

MR. TINGSON. Madam President, may I add a little
word in support of this amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. The Gentleman may proceed.

MR. TINGSON. Madam President, those of us who
^ this Constitutional Commission

ou e to say that we cannot avoid growing old, but
we can avoid growing cold. We read in a very well-
known publication all over the world, entitled Daily
Tea , at growing old has some definite advantages. If
0 gave us full use of our mental faculties, the sunset
years provide a wonderful opportunity of coming to
eims with our past. So, the elderly should be protected
in e sense that they should be supported. The care and
welfare of the elderly shall enjoy the support and pro-
tection of the State because the elderly are not afraid of
tomorrow. They have seen yesterday and they are in
love with today. A famous poet aptly said:

The vain regrets of yesterday had vanished through
God s pardoning grace. The guilty fear has passed away and
joy has come to take its place.

hecau^e"thnQP^^^f ^ ^ Strongly support this amen

“Cnme ^^^ting old WOUld

say. Come, grow old with me; the best is yet to 1

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner

nized.

Bennagen is recog-

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

We have in the section on family rights a provision
which says that the State shall encourage the Filipino

MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you, Madam President.

Mention has been made by the President on the
voluminous letters we receive from war veterans and
government retirees. Commissioner Nolledo and I have
filed Resolution No. 497 for these war veterans and
government retirees, and this had been referred to the
Committee on Declaration of Principles. So, I would
not present it at this time in the Article on Social
Justice because it is appropriately referred to the
Committee on Declaration of Principles.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. What is the Committee’s reaction
to this Ople amendment?

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, we do sympathize
with the concern of the Commissioners but we would
like to state that Section 13, indeed, takes into con-
sideration such concern for the elderly when this special
group has been singled out as one of the underprivileged
to which the State should afford protection because it
includes not only the right to health but also the other
essential social services which this particular disad-
vantaged or underprivileged group would be able to
obtain. So, we feel that providing another special sec-
tion would open the floodgates to other sections that
would include special care for the aged, the sick and
women.

MR. OPLE. May I call for a vote, Madam President.
And in this respect, may I amend our own amendment
so that it will include the veterans.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Before the amendment is put to a
vote, I seek to introduce some amendments.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

137

Both proponents took into account only the elderly;
we have forgotten the orphans and the abandoned chil-
dren. So, I seek to amend the second line by inserting
before “ELDERLY” the following: “ORPHANS,

ABANDONED CHILDREN, WAR VETERANS AND
THE ELDERLY.”

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. Yesterday, Madam President, there
was a discussion here on the section for minors, in
which the phrase “ORPHANS AND ABANDONED
CHILDREN” was to be included. We believe that
both the suggestions of Commissioner Ople and Com-
missioner Davide are amply covered in Section 13
because that section talks about the underprivileged, the
elderly, women and children, and it is in the context of
a total approach to health care.

Secondly, the other aspect of taking care of the
elderly will be provided for in the section on family-
rights as mentioned by Commissioner Bennagen.

So, we believe that this is amply covered in this
section on social justice and health services.

The veterans would be included in the elderly as well
because veterans are approaching old age.

If the proponents insist on their amendments, then
we are willing to call for a vote and ask for the judgment
of the body on whether their inclusion would not be

redundant.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I reply briefly to
the Committee before the amendment is voted upon?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. I appreciate the intervention of other
colleagues - Commissioners de Castro, Davide, Sar-
miento, and above all. Monsod, on behalf of the Com-
mittee - concerning this subject. However, I think they
missed the jugular issue behind this proposed amend-
ment.

As I said in my remarks, we are not talking of family
obligations to the elderly. They have earned their right
in the Social Security System and in the Government
Service Insurance System by paying to these funds all
their working lives, only to be rewarded later with
pittances, strictly disproportionate to the money they
have paid out of their very low wages throughout their
working lives. The veterans, of course, already have
earned a niche for themselves in the Declaration of
Principles.

The de Castro amendment is actually taken from a
provision already existing, I understand, in the Declara-
tion of Principles.

So, when we speak of State protection for the
elderly, we are giving a mandate especially to the SSS,
the GSIS and the Pension Funds of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, that they should not cheat their own
members by denying them living retirement pay that
they have already earned in this system by faithfully
remitting their premium contributions all of their
working lives.

That is one very important significance of this pro-
posed amendment. Madam President.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. May we just say that Section 13
precisely begins with the phrase “The State shall protect
and promote” and talks of a comprehensive integrated
health care to all the people, with priority to the elderly
and the aged, et cetera. So, we believe that this amply
covers the elderly. However, we leave it to the vote of
the body. Madam President.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog-
nized.

MR. DE CASTRO. We have been talking about the
elderly, war veterans and government retirees. I believe,
and I made mention of my Resolution No. 497 co-
authored with Commissioner Nolledo, it is timely that
we read a provision of Resolution No. 497. It says:

It shall be the responsibility of the State to provide
adequate care and benefits for war veterans and government
retirees as well as their dependents commensurate with
their present conditions in hfe. Preference shall be given
these war veterans and government retirees in the acquisi-
tion of public lands and the development of natural
resources.

May I be allowed to explain this.

THE PRESIDENT. But the point is that this parti-
cular idea of the Gentleman is already in the Article on
Declaration of Principles. That is what I understand;
that is what was stated. What we have here now is just
Commissioner Ople’s amendment on the welfare of the
elderly.

MR. DE CASTRO. I was thinking if the elderly can
also be included in this resolution because they are also
war veterans and government retirees. While this was
referred by the Committee on the Accountability of
Public Officers to the Committee on Declaration of
Principles, it is not yet in the report of the Committee
on Declaration of Principles because the reference was
late.

138

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1 986

THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Ople agreeable
to the suggestion of Commissioner de Castro? Actually,
the proposal of Commissioner de Castro is an amend-
ment to the amendment.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I am a veteran of
World War II but I am not retired. There are 600,000
veterans in the country. Approximately half of these are
retired and the others are not retired. However, there is
no bar to providing for the veterans in our proposed
amendment although the right place for veterans ... I
would like to be associated with Commissioner de
Castro in that proposal provided it is appropriately
located in the Article on Declaration of Principles or in
the General Provisions, perhaps immediately following
the statement concerning the Armed Forces and the
defense of the State.

THE PRESIDENT. So, just to clarify from the Com-
^ttee. The Committee does not accept the proposed
amendment. It does not also accept the inclusion
of the issue on veterans in this particular section of the
Article on Social Justice. Is that correct?

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.
ni^Tffi PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

sessiM 3sk for a suspension lof the

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 12:18 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Considering that there are several
issues related to this, whether this particular amendment
would be proper in the Article on Declaration of Prin-
ciples, I would raise a privilege motion. The privilege
motion is to consider the Ople proposal in the Article
on Declaration of Principles.

MR. OPLE. I oppose this motion. Madam President,
and I would like a vote on it.

THE PRESIDENT. We will put it to a vote then.
Actually in the vote, we may already consider the pro-
posed amendment of Commissioner Ople, whether this
proposed section should be adopted in the section of
the Article on Social Justice or not. Is that correct?

MR. DAVIDE. So, the privilege motion is to take this
up when we consider the Article on Declaration of
Principles.

THE PRESIDENT. That would be the effect of what-
ever action is taken by the body.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of including this
Ople amendment on the elderly in the Article on Social
Justice, please raise their hand.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we restate the
motion submitted by Honorable Davide? I think it is
the other way around.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

resumption of SESSION
At 12:23p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. ROMULO. Yes, the motion is not clear. Madam
President.

MR. DAVIDE. The motion is to consider this Ople
proposal in the Article on Declaration of Principles.

MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recog-

MR. OPLE. I support the decision of the Chair, which
was very deliberately arrived at, that the voting be on
the amendment itself.

to^he Ople^propoSi bee ^

* * ^ posai because I sincerplv HpHpvp

provisions on war vett»rt.«o oeiieve

p^perly belong to the Art4t D^SZ^of R

THE PRESIDENT, niankyou.

We will now proceed to vote on the amendment.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

RULING OF THE CHAIR

THE PRESIDENT. While Commissioner Davide said
that this motion is a privilege motion, I believe we
should take this up directly to the point whether this
proposed section properly belongs to the Article on
Social Justice. If it is so decided by the body, then we
will vote on whether it should be included. In other
words, are we in favor of this particular section? It does
not necessarily mean that if it is adopted, that if we
agree that it be included here, the section itself on the
elderly is meritorious. Should it be here or should it be

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9. 1986

139

in some other section? That is the point that we should
first decide. Secondly, if it should be here, are we in
favor? If it is properly here in the Article on Social
Justice, are we in favor of having a separate section on
the elderly or is it already included, as stated by the
Committee, in Section 13 where the word “aged” is
already stated? That is how the Chair sees it.

MR. OPLE. Just to simplify, Madam President, are'
we voting on the merits of this amendment first?

THE PRESIDENT. Not yet because the Davide
amendment proposes an alternative. Should it be here
or should it be in some other section? So, let us first
decide where it should belong — in the Article on Decla-
ration of Principles, General Provisions or Family
Rights, as stated by Commissioner Davide?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, will it be possible for
Commissioner Davide to agree to a voting on the merits?
If it loses, then that will not bar anyone from taking this
up again in connection with the report of the Commit-
tee on the Declaration of Principles?

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would prefer it that
way.

MR. OPLE. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Davide
say?

MR. DAVIDE. I really consider it a prejudicial
question because there are proposals that it should be in
the Declaration of Principles or anywhere else. There are
proposals that it should be here. So, we should decide
first whether it should be here or in the Declaration of
Principles.

THE PRESIDENT. Or somewhere else?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. So, if you vote yes, then you
believe that this is a proper provision in the Article on
Social Justice. If you vote no, then you believe it should
be somewhere else, either in the Article on Family
Rights, Declaration of Principles or General Provisions.

MR. MONSOD. May we just say that the Committee’s
position is that it is meritorious and it is already in-
cluded in Section 13.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of con-
sidering this proposed Ople amendment as part of the
Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand.
( Several Members raised their hand.)

The results show 15 votes in favor and 19 against;
the Ople amendment would not be considered in the
Article on Social Justice but may be considered in some
other Article of the Constitution.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is stiU one
anterior provision that has not been voted on as a com-
plete text. May I ask that we vote on Section 14, as
amended.

THE PRESIDENT. WiU Commissioner Quesada please
read Section 14, as amended?

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall establish and main-
tain an effective food and drug regulatory system and
UNDERTAKE appropriate health manpower develop-
ment and research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUN-
TRY’S HEALTH NEEDS AND problems.”

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; Section 14, as amended, is ap-
proved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no propo-
nents of amendments to the last section which is
Section 15. So, I ask that we vote on Section 15 as a
whole.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Quesada please
read Section 15?

MS. QUESADA. “The State shall establish a special
body for disabled persons for THEIR rehabilitation,
self-development and self-reliance AND towards their
total integration to the maiastream of society.”

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. I have a very minor amendment, and
that is to delete “towards.”

THE PRESIDENT. So, it will read: “self-reliance
AND their total integration.”

MS. QUESADA. The amendment is accepted.

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. May I ask the Committee a question?
Does the term “disabled” in this context also include,
let us say, ex-convicts, people who are in most ways
psychologically wounded, and presumably in a certain

140

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

narrow context also disabled, and in many ways, also MR. RAMA. May I ask that Commissioner Romulo
legally and socially disabled because in a society like be recognized,
ours, they are subject to continuing penalties of ostrac-
ism? Are the ex-prisoners and ex-convicts included THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Romulo is recog-
within the compass of the disabled in this sense? nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President. MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, excuse me. May the

Committee be allowed to state its position regarding this
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog- particular section,
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Profitting from the extensive
deliberations we had with the representatives of the
disabled, my undertanding of a disabled is one who
suffers from some kind of derangement, but not neces-
sarily by virtue of his being an ex-convict because
ex-convicts would be adequately rehabilitated.

MR. OPLE. Yes. Does the Gentleman consider them
qualified for the rehabilitation services provided for in
this section?

MR. BENNAGEN. I think they have to enter what we
ca t e access agencies and should be properly categor-
ize as such depending on their personal situations.

the Committee adopt this position
ot Commissioner Bennagen?

MS. QUESADA. Yes,
hearings with the disabled

this was based on the public
groups.

mittPP th this will save me and the Cc

not inf'll H proposing an amendment if thi

ncluded within the definition of the disabled.

orieinal ^lAGEN. Yes, as a matter of fact, the

taliv only referred to those who are men-

Prim P^y^^^^tly handicapped. Some members of the
wni °^-i®^ted to that definition because that

die KT ^ huge number of people who are

3 e nientally, sensorially, psychologically, et cetera.

m-++^ '■^^t understanding, since the Com-

1 ee as adopted this, I will not press my amendment.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

MR. BENGZON. May we vote now on Section 15?

TlJph ^‘^i^SIDENT. Is there
Ihe Chair hears none; Section 1

any objection? (Silence)
5 is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President the onlv remain
section under this Article is thP .III ^

MR. BENGZON. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. May we request the recognition of
Honorable Garcia?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Garcia is recog-
nized.

MR. GARCIA. First of all, we would like to read
Sections 19 and 20, as revised, after having considered
the amendments and suggestions of various Com-
missioners, especially Commissioners Davide, Ople,
Rosario Braid, Romulo and, of course, the members of
the Committee. So, with you is the original draft ot tlie
Committee plus a half page where we make an effort to
give the definition of people’s organizations as part of
Section 19. So, I will read the two sections and then
give a very brief explanation.

SEC. 19. In the pursuit of the ends of Social Justice, tlie
State shall respect the independence and the role of
people’s organizations as a means of empowering the people
to pursue and protect througli peaceful means their legiti-
mate and collective interests and aspirations.

People’s organizations are bona fide associations of
citizens' with identifiable leadership, membership and struc-
ture and demonstrated capacity to promote the public
interest.

\ SEC. 20. The State shall respect the right of the people
and their organizations to effective and reasonable par-
ticipation at all levels of social, political and economic
decision-making, and shall MAKE POSSIBLE adequate
consultation mechanisms.

I will present a very brief explanation for Sections
19 and 20 and why we feel these are very important and
integral parts of the entire Article on Social Justice.

Empowering the people is a key to the attainment of
the ends of social justice. So, in this new constitution,
we feel we must recognize that people’s organizations
can be one significant vehicle in this progressive and
democratic tradition. The majority of no wealth nor
political influence can empower themselves through
people’s organizations that are popular and authentic
expressions of their will. Indeed, it is argued here that
people s power can find most permanent, organized and
articulate expression through such organizations withhi
the democratic framework. The new constitution must,
therefore, recognize the role of people’s organizations

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

141

as a principal means of empowering the people to
pursue and protect, in a peaceful manner, popular and
social reforms and mandate the State to respect their
independence as autonomous checks to State power.
Finally, the new constitution must also institutionalize
people's participation and ensure consultation among
the basic sectors at all levels of social, political and
economic decision-making, guaranteeing that the people
have access to information necessary to make informed
and responsible decisions. Concretely, the State must be
mandated to make possible proper and adequate con-
sultation mechanisms with the people, and the formula-
tion and implementation of local, regional and national
priorities, plans, programs and projects that affect the
people’s lives. Thus, in sum, empowennent of the
people is the enabling mechanism in the cause of social
justice and people’s power can find more permanent
expression in people’s organizations and through the
institutionalization of consultation mechanisms that
insure people’s participation in decision-making.

We would like now to ask if there are others who may
wish to add or amend. *

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Romulo be
recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Romulo is recog-
nized.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, this is a brief
amendment. I would like the Committee to consider the
deletion of the opening clause “In the pursuit of Social
Justice” because it is really unnecessary. This whole
Article is devoted to social justice and Sections 1 and 2
lay down the basic premise and spell out the means of
carrying it out. So, I really do not think the opening
clause is necessary.

MR. GARCIA. We thought it is important to place it
because people’s organizations are precise vehicles and
enabling mechanisms to achieve social justice. Of course,
it is within the context of the whole Article.

MR. ROMULO. So are the other provisions but we do
not begin the other provisions with “In the pursuit of
social justice, agrarian reform, urban reform, et cetera.”

MR. GARCIA. That is true but in a sense, this is a
summary of the different sections. We realize that we
are going to draft an imperfect constitution and, there-
fore, it will be up to many of the people’s movements
and organizations advocating the protection and the in-
terest of their specific sectors like the farmers in land
reform and the urban poor to pursue and pressure
Congress so that it can be responsive to enact the laws
that will definitely meet their basic needs. So, it is a
summary that for social justice to be pursued and per-
fected, these people’s organizations will finish whatever
we have accomplished.

MR. ROMULO. Althougli it can have the meaning
that the other sections are not in the pursuit of social
justice.

MR. GARCIA. It does not have that meaning, of
course.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. I would like to ask a basic question.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, can we finish first
the proposal of Commissioner Romulo?

MR. RODRIGO. I am sorry.

MR. ROMULO. If the Committee does not accept the
amendment, I will not insist on that. May I ask what is
the position of the Committee.

MR. GARCIA. We would prefer to have this phrase
m the section.

MR. ROMULO. Is that the Committee’s response?

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee does not accept
the amendment.

MR. GARCIA. The Committee is divided; there are
some who feel that it can . . .

MR. ROMULO. Then may I ask for a vote.

MR. SUAREZ. How would the amendment read?

MR. ROMULO. I would delete the phrase “In the
pursuit of Social Justice” and start with “The State.”

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment accepted now
by the Committee?

MR. SUAREZ. No, Madam President.

MR. ROMULO. We ask for a vote, Madam President.
VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the
proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

The results show 28 votes in favor and 9 against; the
proposed amendment is approved.

142

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. ROMULO. I have another amendment on the
first line. It will be on the words “the independence
and.” I believe that this may be misinterpreted to mean
that other forms of organizations and associations which
are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are not entitled
to independence because we are singling out for respect
only the so-called people’s organizations. What about
the other associations hke civic, religious unions, etc.
which are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights?

MR. GARCIA. In our understanding, many of these
associations and organizations can be classified as
people’s organizations. But the term “independence” is
important because we want to ensure that these organi-
zations are not simply or merely a creation of the State,
that they are not manipulated in any way like what we
had in the past. And so, it is important to maintain that
independence so that they can be a check on the power
of the State, that they are never instruments only of
whatever group.

MR. ROMULO. So, the Gentleman does not mean to
imply that the other types of organizations and associa-
tions which are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights do
not deserve a respect of their independence?

MR. GARCIA. Of course, they have a right to that
independence too. But what is important is that very
o en we have organizations that are created, like our
wpenence with the Samahang Nayon, which are simply
manipulations or instruments of the State. And we
want to ensure that there are no labor unions, trade

umons, or any other organizations that are used for that
purpose.

tv. ROMULO. The other implication is that since
e Gentleman wants the State to respect their in-
ependence, the State may pass laws or regulations
ostensibly for the purpose of protecting their inde-
pendence. Has the Committee considered that? This
may have a reverse effect.

MR. GARCIA. We do not beUeve so. Madam Pres-
ident.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, would it solve
ent ®man s anxiety over the interpretation if we tr<
pose the word “independent” and say; “The State s:
uS'^? independent people’s organ

PFNDFNT Rm?" ^HE INDl

PENDENT ROLE OF PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS

•? ^ ^ "mdependence” is not necess

rily to he organization but to the role which is tl
principal point.

MR. GARCIA. I am sorry. It is not simply the role
but also their independence . . . We should not touch
the autonomous and authentic character of those
organizations.

MR. ROMULO. But that is guaranteed under the Bill
of Rights. That is my whole point. If we single out one
type of organization whose independence must be re-
spected by the State, by implication, we are vitiating the
general protection provided under the Bill of Rights.

MR. GARCIA. Anyway, the understanding 1 have is
that the Gentleman is, in fact, underscoring the impor-
tance of this thing. But if he wishes, the sentence which
reads: “The State shall respect the role of INDE-
PENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS” would at
least emphasize the importance.

MR. ROMULO. Could the Gentleman read it again?

MR. GARCIA. “The State shall respect the role of
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS.”

MR. ROMULO. Fine; I accept.

MR. GARCIA. Thank you.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Rodrigo have
any comment on this?

MR. RODRIGO. No, I have another amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. How is it now. Commissioner
Garcia?

MR. GARCIA. The amendment will read:
shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEO
ORGANIZATIONS ...”

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo w i
was accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The C ai
hears none; the amendment is approved.

Commissioner Colay co is recognized.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President. If we
put the adjective “INDEPENDENT” before “PEOPLE’S
ORGANIZATIONS ” which will be like this: “The State
shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S
ORGANIZATIONS,” it would seem that there are
people’s organizations which are not independent. I
would just omit the adjective “INDEPENDENT,” and it
will read: “The State shall respect the role of PEOPLE’S
ORGANIZATIONS.”

MR. BENGZON. Yes. “The State shall respect the THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Romulo
INDEPENDENT ROLE ...” say?

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

143

MR. ROMULO. No, the implication is wrong. Pre-
cisely, we want the State to respect only a bona fide
independent people’s organization, not a company
union.

MR. BENGZON. Yes, that is the idea.

MR. GARCIA. Not just any group of individuals.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

MR. COLAYCO. 1 fail to see the difference there. I
think that the word “INDEPENDENT” is a surplusage.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is

recognized.

MR. COLAYCO. I do not mind if we do not have
this.

MR. BENNAGEN. On behalf of tlie Committee, I
think the same issue was raised with respect to the ri^t
of independent peasant organizations. We are saying
here that there are all sorts of people’s organizations
and some of these are really company unions and that
they carry the government line. But we would like to
encourage as a source of complementary structures the
existence of independent organizations that can develop
their development programs apart from those that are
pursued by governmental structures.

’ For instance, we can mention peasant organizations
that are really only supportive of existing government
programs, which need not really redound to the benefit
of the peasant themselves.

MR. COLAYCO. Company unions are not necessarily
openly dependent. They become dependent when it is
proven that they are company unions. I mean, prima
facie, all organizations are independent. Even if we put
“INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS,”
company unions can always claim that.

MR. BENNAGEN. That is a manner of speaking. We
can cite maybe a more specific example, the Kabataang
Barangay, which in itself is a kind of youth organiza-
tion which is also under the ambit of people’s organiza-
tion. But they can be manipulated to carry on the party
line as it were. That is what we want to avoid.

MR. COLAYCO. Yes, but I mean, by simply putting
“INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS” does
not stamp any organization for that matter as inde-
pendent. As I said, a company union can always claim
to be an independent organization, which they always
do anyway.

MR. BENNAGEN. I cannot follow because by
definition, when we speak of company union, it carries
the thrust of the company which may become produc-
tive to the interest of authentic labor unions.

MR. COLAYCO. But they are not officially called
company unions. I will not press my point on this. I
think that saving the time of the Commission is more
important than this.

MR. BENNAGEN. Even ILO Convention 141, to
which the Philippines is a signatory', assigns this role to
independent organizations.

MR. RAMA. The Commission is ready to vote,
Madam President.

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear: “The State shall
respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S OR-
GANIZATIONS”? That is what is to be voted upon.

As many as are in favor of this particular amendment,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand, (No-
body raised his hand. )

MR. RODRIGO. I register my abstention. Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. Just a minute, we will just an-
nounce the results.

The results show 28 votes in favor, no vote against
and one abstention; the amendment is approved.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I ask that I
be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Just a basic question. I have before
me the text of the Bill of Rights which we have ap-
proved already. Section 7 provides:

The right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form associations, unions
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.

Section 9 reads:

No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.

I would like to ask: Do these provisions not cover the
“people’s organizations’’ which are sought to be pro-
tected again by the government under Sections 1 9 and
20 ?

144

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. GARCIA. Sections 19 and 20 have a very
particular thrust: as an enabling mechanism precisely
to make social justice real. The encouragement is given
to the people that they organize themselves, that they
protect their legitimate interests peacefully througli
their collective efforts. That is the whole thrust.

MR. DAVIDE. The proper reference to that would
really be the people’s organization. So, it is to these
organizations that the respect must be accorded to.

MR. GARCIA. No, I am sorry. It is basic to the
people.

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, I understand.

MR. GARCIA. Therefore, what does it do? It refines
and it amplifies what we already have in the Bill of
Rights, specifically, because of the whole vision that we
have of social justice. If the Gentleman will remember,
when we began the definition, we said “to redistribute
wealth and power.” In other words, it is not simply the
State later on which will ensure that all of these pro-
tections and recognition of rights are given but the
people also must have a legitimate share of pohtical
power for them to participate. And so, this is the vehicle
for them.

MR. RODRIGO. I just want to be very brief. So is it
my understanding now that even without these provi-
^ons, the general provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of our
ill of Rights would cover this, but for emphasis the
Committee wants to particularize?

MR. GARCIA. Yes, that is the intent. Madam Pres-
ident.

MR RODRIGO. But this is already covered in
general.

f general rights are found in the Bill

of Rights.

MR. RODRIGO. So, this is only to particularize and
for emphasis.

MR. GARCIA. Yes.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are three more
speakers on the two sections. May I ask that Com-
rnissioncr Davidc b6 recognized?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-

MR. DAVIDE. In effect, we will broaden the provi-
sion, and it might become rather deceptive.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. “The State shall respect the role of
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS as a
means of empowering them to pursue and protect
through peaceful means their legitimate. . .,” meaning,
again, the organization.

MR. GARCIA. No. Madam President; in fact, many
people are unorganized while others are organizing, but
some are already organized. In a sense, we are trying to
say that only a citizenry that is organized and mobilized
can really pursue this very difficult endeavor of the
State. In fact, if the Gentleman will remember, in many
of the previous interventions, when we spoke of the
unfinished popular revolution of February, we said it
was a political act and that the social changes which are
unfinished still have to be pursued. It is not only the
task of the State but also the people. We will still have
to pursue this through their organizations.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, these organizations
would be the vehicle of the people? ,

MR. GARCIA. Exactly.

MR. DAVIDE. Then I will not insist. But after the
word “protect,” I would seek certain transpositions^
Delete “through peaceful means” and in lieu ^hereo i^
sert the following: WITHIN THE DEMOCRA

FRAMEWORK. And then, after “aspirations,” i«ser
THROUGH PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL ^^ANS. So,
will read: the people to pursue and protect, WITH
THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK, their legitirna^
and collective interests and aspirations THROUGH
PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS.”

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President.
<lp<'tinn’L’^Li f®''' amendments. On line

tute the wr^THEM

MR. GARCIA. We accept, Madam President.

MR. GARCIA. We accept. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this
proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other amendment?

MR. GARCIA. Excuse me. I am sorry. This is not
simply to empower the organization but the people. It
is a vehicle to empower the people.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com-
missioner Aquino be recognized?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-
nized.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

145

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, I move to delete the
phrase “as a means of empowering the people” on lines
2 and 3 of Section 19.

MR. AZCUNA. Madam President.

MR. SUAREZ. Excuse me. Could Commissioner
Aquino repeat the proposed amendment?

MS. AQUINO. Delete the phrase “as a means of
empowering the people.” I believe that it is an abstract
diversion which conjures an image of an adversarial or
conflict situation, and I would much rather that we
focus clearly on the intent which is to pursue and
protect within the democratic framework, after the
Davide amendment, their legitimate and collective
interests and aspirations.

MR. AZCUNA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Azcuna is recog-
nized.

MR. GARCIA. Excuse me. Madam President. May I
answer? I believe tliat tlie phrase “empowering the
people” is very important here. Our experience in the
past, precisely, underlines the fact that unless our
people are organized and mobilized to pursue their
collective interests and their legitimate ends, they are
powerless. Precisely, our purpose is to mention this.

MR. AZCUNA. I would like to suggest only that
instead of deleting it, why not just say “TO ENABLE
the people,” because the phrase “empowering the
people” is really objectionable. Power is supposed to
reside in the people and the State should not empower
the people because they already have the power. What
we should do is to enable the people to exercise that
power So, I believe it would be better if we say; “The
State shall respect the role of independent people’s
organizations TO ENABLE the people to pursue and
protect,” because it is the people who really should do

this.

MS. AQUINO. I accept. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Aquino
say?

MS. AQUINO. I accept the amendment to the amend-
ment.

MR. GARCIA. I just want to make a clarification.
Here, we are not saying that the State will empower the
people — not at all. We are saying that the organizations
are the means of empowering the people. It is an injunc-
tion; in fact, it is almost an encouragement for them to
get organized and to be involved. It is very difficult for
people to be involved individually if they are going to

protect their interests. They, therefore, must discover
that vehicle which will empower them and these are the
organizations we are referring to.

MR. BENNAGEN. May I, Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. I think the idea really is for
people, in their organized numbers, to recover their
power which has been lost by their being atomized into
passive individuals; and for me, it may not really be
necessary because it can lend a number of misinterpreta-
tions. All we want to say is that the people, to recover
their sense of strength, must come together to pursue
their collective interests. I think that is the intent and
not for anything. It is not for the State or an external
agency to provide this power but the people themselves
must recover and restore this to themselves.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

MR. AZCUNA. So, we reiterate our amendment.
Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Azcuna satis-
fied?

MR. AZCUNA. No, Madam President. We would like
to insist on the amendment to delete the phrase “as a
principal means of empowering the people” and instead,
insert the phrase “TO ENABLE the people.” So that it
will read: “The State shall respect the role of inde-
pendent people’s organizations TO ENABLE the people
to pursue and protect ...”

THE PRESIDENT. Instead of “empowering,” it will
be “TO ENABLE the people.”

MR. AZCUNA. Yes.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the situation calls for
a vote now.

VOTING

the PRESIDENT. Yes. As many as are in favor of
this proposed amendment of Commissioners Aquino
and Azcuna, please raise their hand. ( Several Members
raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

The results show 30 votes in favor and 8 votes
against; the ainendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no amend-
ments- to Section 20, which is the last section; so 1 ask
that a vote be taken on Section 20.

146

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. We have not yet voted on Section MR. OPLE. Madam President.

19 as a whole. Will Commissioner Garcia please read

Section 19, as amended? THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. GARCIA. Section 19, as amended, will read:
“The State shall respect the role of independent
people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue
and protect within the democratic framework, their
legitimate and coUective interests and aspirations
through peaceful and lawful means.”

THE PRESIDENT. There is a second paragraph.

MR. GARCIA. There are no amendments on the
second paragraph.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I suggest that we
limit the vote to the first sentence, because I would like

to engage in a brief discussion later on concerning the
second sentence.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?

MR. MA^BONG. Madam President, just a very
Z^apT ^ by the second

I notice that we are about to vote on the paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. That is the first paragraph.

President. When

aoostrnnho • people’s organizations,” the

letter £ while in the Committee

u/h,Vh^ k"’ apostrophe is after the letter S. Which is
Inch, because the meaning will vary?

til GARCIA. People’s” is with an apostrophe after
the letter it is just a typographical error.

MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you.

VOTING

i^ariy as are in favor of the
Commkti?^^ Section 19 which has been read by

Members

Mmb7^mtsShJhmT^^'

The results show 38 vote^ in r

against; the fust sentence of Action "V

Ttan...<a Jo ^ootion 19 IS approved.

There is a second naraoMnk u- .
by Commissioner Garcia. ^ before

MR. GARCIA. PEOPLE’S oor'AxtTo,

BONA FIDE associations OF

IDENTIFIABLE LEADER <ihtd CITIZENS WITH

STRUCTURE AND DEMONSTiUTEDC^^TarY TO
PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST

MR. OPLE. Will the Committee yield to some ques-
tions concerning the second paragraph?

First of all, do I understand it right that this is a con-
solidation of several proposed amendments which were
earlier brought to the attention of the Committee by
Commissioners Christian Monsod, Ricardo Romulo,
Hilario Davide, Jr. and myself?

This definition of people’s organization is acceptable
to me, being one of the proponents of the amendments
which are now considered subsumed in this definition.
But I thought I would make the observation that,
indeed, this draft Constitution, not only in the Article
on Social Justice but in other Articles, will probably
stand out among contemporary constitutions once it is
ratified in one respect: there is a fairly ubiquitous
reference to people’s power in several forms as one of
the guiding principles for a new social order that is, in
effect, ordained by this Constitution. Thus, people s
organizations may initiate amendments to the Constitu-
tion and the laws through the power of initiative and
referendum already vested in them elsewhere. They rnay
even overthrow a government that will become a traitor
to the people and their Constitution. This is found in
the Declaration of Principles. They shall participate m
carrying out the mandates on social justice, especially in
the fields of labor and agrarian reform. And under this
new section that we are considering, they are constitu-
tionalized for purposes of participating in all levels ot
decision-making of the government and they initiate the
socioeconomic structures that will best conform to the
standards of social justice.

So, with all the powers and duties vested in these
organizations, I am glad the Committee has agreed to
incorporate a definition of these organizations. How-
ever, I would like to call the attention of the Cornmit-
tee, or I should put this as a question to the Committee.
I suppose that people’s organizations do embrace m
groups of citizens that band together voluntarily for the
pursuit of public interest. Would that be correct?

MR. GARCIA. That is correct. Madam President.

MR. OPLE. Therefore, this would include both labor
and peasant organizations?

MR. GARCIA. Yes, including professional, neighbor-
hood and civic associations, ethnic and cultural groups,
and so on.

MR. OPLE. And presumably, because of the tripartite
character of negotiations for industrial peace, these
should also include associations of landowners and
associations of business and industry.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

147

MR. GARCIA. Yes, because they also pursue the
public interest.

MR. OPLE. May I call the attention of the Commit-
tee to the fact that in the case of bona fide labor and
peasant organizations, they do write their own constitu-
tions and bylaws embodying their principles as well as
their rules of internal life. And in the case of labor
organizations, tliese are deposited in the competent
authority of the government; that is, the Ministry of
Labor and Employment. Of course, when one deter-
mines the most representative workers’ organization for
the purpose of appointing delegates to international
labor conferences, these reports also serve as a basis for
determining who should be chosen. The Committee had
earlier considered, as part of my proposed amendment,
a minor requirement where, just in the case of bona fide
labor organizations, the people’s organizations which
were given these powers in the Constitution would be
asked to submit their constitutions and bylaws, together
with the list of their elected and appointive officers, and
these are deposited in the office of the government with
competent authority.

Since labor organizations are already covered by these
laws, then the rigor of the qualifications to be con-
sidered bona fide and independent people’s organization
would be higlrer in the case of labor than in the case of
other organizations, including civic associations. Would
that be correct?

MR. GARCIA. We are not trying to establish a
hierarchy of one being more important than the other.
We are saying that they have an equal rule. In as far as
they can protect the public interests, in a far more effec-
tive and better way . . .

MR. OPLE. I am describing an existing situation
where by virtue of the existing law, there is indeed a
higher standard of rigor for labor organizatioiis than in
the case of nonlabor organizations, except those that
register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Would the Committee not consider equalizing this
standard of rigor for all by also requiring the other
people’s organizations to deposit their constitufions
and bylaws in an appropriate office of the government?

MR. GARCIA. Madam President, there are also
different levels of organizations and their nature vary.
Therefore there are some who may not even have
constitutions and bylaws. They may just simply have a
declaration of principles and a program of action.
Therefore, we also have to respect that level of political
maturity or that level of organization which those
groups have.

MR. OPLE. Yes. I am not going to insist on that.

MR. GARCIA. We would not want to impose simply
one standard.

MR. OPLE. I am not going to insist on that because
I already yielded to the Committee’s request earlier.
But would Commissioner Garcia, for purposes of record-
ing the intent of the Committee, not agree that in the
future, all the independent people’s organizations,
considering the powers and duties vested in them in this
Constitution, including the possibility of participating
in regional development councils and the planning work
of the National Economic and Development Authority,
should be encouraged to rise to a level of maturity and
responsibility where they will write their own constitu-
tions and bylaws for their own internal guidance and for
the guidance of those who support them?

MR. GARCIA. Yes. According to their capability and
capacity, of course, we would like to encourage their
political development and maturity.

MR. OPLE. If that is admitted as an objective under
this paragraph, then I will not insist on reviving that
amendment.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, we can now take a
vote on the second paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Garcia read
again the second paragraph?

MR. DAVIDE. I have a very minor amendment,
Madam President, on the second paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized. #

MR. DAVIDE. Before “people’s,” insert the word
“independent”; and then between the letters “e” and
“s” in “peoples,” insert an apostrophe (’).

THE PRESIDENT. Where will the word “indepen-
dent” be?

MR. DAVIDE. Before the word “peoples,” place the
word “independent,” then place an apostrophe (’) be-
tween “e” and “s” in “peoples.”

MR. GARCIA. Accepted, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG. May I propose an amendment by
substituting the word “identifiable” with IDENTIFIED,
unless the Committee intentionally used the word
“identifiable.”

MR. GARCIA. It is “identifiable.”

148

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. MAAMBONG. Because “IDENTIFIED” would
mean that there is no other action to be taken because
they are already identified. In the case of “identifiable,”
I would take it to mean that some effort has to be done
and there is the capability of identifying them. Why do
we have to hide the identities? Why do we just say
“IDENTIFIED leadership”?

MR. DAVIDE. I understand that Commissioner
Garcia accepted it earlier. If Commissioner Garcia would
agree to the proposal of Commissioner Monsod, I am
not insisting on that particular amendment.

MR. GARCIA. I concur with the opinion of Com-
missioner Monsod.

MR. GARCIA. I do not think there is a need for that.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept?

MR. GARCIA. We do not accept.

MR. DAVIDE. So, the only amendment is the apos-
trophe (’).

MR. RAMA. So, we are now ready to vote on the
amendment on the second paragraph. Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG. I will not press the amendment.

MR. RAMA. The amendment has been withdrawn.
Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Let us vote on the Davide amend-
ment first.

MR. RAMA. Yes.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. We would like to request Com-

inserting the word “IN-
li NDENT because what we are defining here are
people s organizations,” not independent people’s
organizations. The word “INDEPENDENT” is already

m the first section and perhaps it is not necessary to put
this here.

MR. DAVIDE. I think it is necessary because by
virtue of the amendments earlier introduced, the open-
ing sentence of Section 19 will read: “The State shall
respect the role of independent people’s organizations
to enable the people to pursue and protect ...”

MR. MON SOD. Madam President, there is nothing in
the definition that is relevant to the word “INDEPEN-
DENT. The definition that is here is to “people’s or-
ganizations. I am just wondering whether it is still
necessary to put that. Are we saying that to make the
distinction here may not be necessary?

MR. RAMA. So what is the position of the Commit-
tee so we can vote?

MR. MONSOD. We would rather not have the word
“INDEPENDENT.” If the Commissioner insists, we may
have to go to a vote.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Davide insist?

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the
second paragraph of Section 19, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 39 votes in favor and no vote
against; the second paragraph of Section 19 is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there is a minor
amendment to Section 20 by Commissioner Maambong.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG. I propose a minor amendment on
Section 20 by adding the words AS DETERMINED BY
LAW.

THE PRESIDENT. Where?

MR. MAAMBONG. In' the last sentence after the
word “mechanisms.” I feel. Madam President, that the
phrase “AS DETERMINED BY LAW” is necessary
in order that we could provide the mechanics and
the process of consultation; otherwise, the consultation
mechanism would be meaningless.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
May we have the reaction of the Committee?

MR. GARCIA. The understanding is that whether
there is a law or not, this basic right must be respected
and they should be consulted. The consultation mechan-
ism itself could be threshed out and discussed, and later
on, we need not have a law for that right.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. The Committee believes that the
phrase “within the democratic framework” might

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

149

already be sufficient that we do not need to put the
phrase “AS DETERMINED BY LAW.”

MR. GARCIA. Yes.

MR. MONSOD. As a matter of fact, there are already
mechanisms in place now that did not need legislation.

MR. REGALADO. I proposed the same amendment
before because even in Section 3 (b), we stated that
with respect to labor, they shall also participate in
policy- and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and interests as may be provided by law. Is there
a difference insofar as the participation of labor is
concerned?

MR. GARCIA. Yes, that is correct.

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Maambong
insist?

MR. MAAMBONG. My only point, Madam President,
is that we make possible adequate consultation mechan-
isms but if we do not operationalize this consultation
mechanism by some law or some process, how could we
make it effective?

MR. GARCIA. It appears in other people’s organiza-
tions as we already mentioned. In fact, the executive
department or the different ministries can create these
mechanisms where the people can be consulted and
their ideas be incorporated for a better decision-making
process. In other cases, the people themselves can create
these mechanisms and structures and invite all officials
involved so tlrat the decision-making process can be
made better.

MR. GARCIA. In fact, we have discussed that earlier.
This is happening in some of the ministries. In the Of-
fice of the President, tliere are already consultations
going on, but the mechanism itself will be refined by
practice.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. I agree with the comments of
Commissioners Monsod and Garcia as to the spon-
taneous but rather effective and dynamic people’s
organizations and consultations with government. I
think the problem with including that phrase “AS
DETERMINED BY LAW” is for the law to delimit the
possibilities of people’s organizations consulting with
government. We are saying that the full potential of
people’s organizations consulting with government can-
not be accommodated by law. Therefore, to put that is
already to provide some limitations to the fuller
expression of people’s organizatioins.

MR. REGALADO. Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, this is not
really the intention of the proponent but if the Com-
mittee feels that way, we do not have to put it to a vote.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Maambong
insist?

MR. REGALADO. In the discussion that took place
earlier, it was said 'that Section 20 also encompasses the
matter of labor unions. But here, the proponents do not
want to have that phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW whereas, under the subparagraph on labor, that
phrase appears. So, if it is a labor union on one hand
under Section 3 (b), they will be subjected to the provi-
sions of the law. However, in applying Section 20, the
Committee does not want to have that same regulatory
provision.

MR. GARCIA. No, excuse me. I just want to clarify.
What the Commissioner intends is not to wait for the
legislature to enact a law before consultation mechanism
can take place. In fact, we are saying it is already taking
place. A public hearing is a very clear example of how
an interaction between those who are supposed to enact
laws and the people for whom the laws are supposed
to be made should be for a better process of lawmaking.

MR. REGALADO. So, it is a question of time. Why
do we not say “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW”?

MR. GARCIA. It is not merely a question of time.
Very often those who govern do not, in a sense, recog-
nize the people’s right of participation and consultation.
And we feel that it is important to establish this
principle here.

MR. REGALADO. Is it the apprehension of Com-
missioner Garcia that if we put the phrase “AS MAY

BE PROVIDED BY LAW,” the law may stifle their
nghts?

MR. MAAMBONG. We will submit.

MR. REGALADO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recog-
nized.

MR. GARCIA. It can be a constraining factor. In
other words, the people will feel that there might be a
need tor legislative action as a precondition before they
can exercise their right to participate using the proper
consultation mechanisms or before they, in fact, can
organize.

150

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

MR. REGALADO. So, we go back to that original The results show 21 votes in favor and 16 votes
question we asked on labor where he agreed that it against; the amendment is approved,
should be a consultative process and their participation

therein may be as provided by law because it might . MR. RAMA. Madam President, there are no more
conflict with the other existing laws. In effect, it is amendments to Section 20, so I ask that it be voted
actually just a regulatory implementation. on as a whole.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, in the case of
Section 3, on labor, it is not only a question between
organizations and the government; it is also a question
of a third party, which is the enterprise. That is why it
might be necessary to have the law define the respective
rights of these two — the employer and the employee.

In this case, we are referring to organizations of
people themselves and, secondly, these consultative
mechanisms are already placed in many sections of the
government. It might impair that right, if we have to
say that it has to be formalized in a law.

This section does not say that a law may not be
passed. It is possible that it will be passed. We are just
saying that we do not want it to look like a precondi-
tion for the exercise of consultation.

THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Garcia please
read the section.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Is the exact wording of the amend-
ment “AS DETERMINED BY LAW” or “AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW”?

MR. REGALADO. “AS DETERMINED BY LAW”
was the amendment of Commissioner Maambong who
withdrew the same. Mine was “AS MAY BE PRO-
VIDED BY LAW.”

THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Regalado intro-
ducing another amendment which has been withdrawn
by Commissioner Maambong?

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President, I would

n here, because in the first

onimissioner Monsod says that there is nothing
mat will prevent the enactment of such a law. So, why
not make it specific‘s

THE PRESIDENT. So, let us put it to a vote ther

^®ndment is to add the phrase “A
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.”

^ many as are in favor of this proposed amendmer
ot Commissioner Regalado, please raise their hand.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

MR. BROCKA. Madam President.

MR. BENNAGEN. Just two little comments.

caiTspeak^W^f ^ ^

can speak. We finish the voting first.

VOTING

“™ciently discusse<

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, may we just have a
clarification. I believe Commissioner Regalado already
said that this does not mean that a law is a precondition
for consultation to take place. Is that a correct inter-
pretation?

MR. REGALADO. That is precisely why the phrase
used is “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.” There
may be no law, or the present situation will just be as i
is. But if Congress sees it fit to make some qualifications
later on, then this will not preempt Congress. Congre^
may even strengthen this consultative process an
require adequate mechanisms for such a consultation.

THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear now with the Com-
mittee? Can we now read the whole Section 20?

MR. GARCIA. Section 20, as amended, will read:
“The State shall respect the right of the people and their
organizations to effective and reasonable participation
at all levels of social, political and economic decision-
making, and shall make possible adequate consultation
mechanisms AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.”

VOTING

“AS maT be proviSIy I ^

hand. ( Several Members raised their hand )

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of Section
20, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Mem-
bers raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

151

MR. GARCIA. Madam President, I would like to
abstain. I would simply like to put on record that the
phrase “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW” substan-
tially weakens the provision.

THE PRESIDENT. May I just announce the result of
the voting.

The results show 30 votes m favor, 6 votes against
and 1 abstention; Section 20 is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, may 1 just ask
Commissioner Regalado one clariflcatory question?

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. NOLLEDO. As I understand it, “AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW” should refer only to the mechan-
isms.

MR. REGALADO. No, it refers to the entire partici-
pation process. The law will provide how it will be done
or how the participation will be.

THE PRESIDENT. But it is not a precondition. In
other words, it is not a requirement that there must be a
law to provide for this. Is that clear, Commissioner
Regalado?

MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President. That is
why I used “AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW” as
distinguished from “AS DETERMINED BY LAW,
because the latter is a precondition while the former is
not.

MR. NOLLEDO. Therefore, Congress cannot set
forth limitations on the right.

MR. REGALADO. Again?

MR. NOLLEDO. Therefore, Congress cannot set
forth limitations.

MR. REGALADO. Congress can stand there; it cah
strengthen, make more effective, amplify, supplement
or qualify.

MR. NOLLEDO. But not limit.

MR. REGALADO. Why should we preempt Congress
in its decision-making?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo, it says
here “and shall make possible.” So, how can it retract
or reduce? It shall make possible as may be provided by
law. In other woras, the law will just provide the corre-
sponding mechanism but it has to make possible all that
has been stated here in this body.

MR. NOLLEDO. I agree with the Chair. Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Ople
has graciously withdrawn his last amendment. So, there
are no more provisions or sections here to be voted on.
But before I ask for the termination of the period of
amendments, may I ask that we insert in the Record a
speech of Commissioner Tingson, entitled; “Land Re-
fonn. Pillar of Economic Recovery,” which is a com-
ment and an observation on the section that we have.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*

Please furnish a copy to the Secretariat.

MR. TINGSON. Yes, I will. Madam President.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. So, are we through now with the
Article on Social Justice?

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, before I move to ter-
minate the period of amendments, I would like to
register the reservation of Commissioner Jamir to amend
Section 5 and Commissioner Foz’ to amend Section 1 1.

With those reservations. Madam President, I move
that we close the period of amendments on the Article
on Social Justice.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection?

FR. BERNAS. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bemas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. I would also like to reserve an amend-
ment on Section 20. That is the very last one.

MR. RAMA. Commissioner Bemas would like to
make a reservation on Section 20.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, just a small point.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. I just want to make the manifestation
that Commissioner de los Reyes was consulted in the
drafting of the section on the rights of fish workers
which included the phrase “service workers and other

*See Appendix

152

SATURDAY, AUGUST 9, 1986

forms of contractual relationship.” That is just for
purposes of drafting it, the styling.

MR. RAMA. With those reservations, Madam Pres-
ident, I move that we close the period of amendments
on the Article on Social Justice.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Qiair hears none; the motion is approved.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we
adjourn until Monday at nine-thirty in the morning.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is adjourned until
Monday at nine-thirty in the morning.

It was 1:36 p.m.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

153

R.C.C. NO. 53
Monday, August 11, 1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 9:43 a.m.f the President, the Honorable Cecilia
Muhoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing ,
the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.

Chamber, O Lord, there are no foes, only colleagues in
the common endeavor to structure the foundation of
this nation.

Guide us, Almighty God, in these, the final days, to
make the Constitution we are drafting one that is ac-
ceptable to our people but, more importantly, one that
is deserving of Your blessing and benediction. Amen.

ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will please
call the roll.

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable
Jose D. Calderon.

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.

PRAYER

MR. CALDERON. Let us pray.

Almighty God, we are entering the final phase of our
task to draft what will become the fundamental law of
the Filipino people.

The last two months had been hectic but the days
ahead will be even more demanding.

Even now, strenuous and sustained effort has taken
its toll among those of us who are not in excellent
health nor of robust physical attributes.

But, Almighty God, the few of us who had been
stricken ill are, by Your Grace, holding on tenaciously
to the job at hand, pushed on by a determination and a
purpose single to the completion of this endeavor, toge-
ther with our more physically able colleagues.

As our work mtensifies, as the demands on our
efforts grow heavier, give us, O Lord, the strength to
carry on. Reenergize our bodies; give more light to our
minds; put more love in our hearts; and grant us more
understanding and sympathy for those views that con-
tradict our own.

As crucial issues are submitted to a vote, fortify us.
Almighty God, with humility in victory, with grace in
defeat, and with the wisdom to understand that every
vote cast in this Chamber is a vote of conscience in-
tended to achieve the common weal and certainly not a
partisan stand designed to defeat a foe, for in this

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar . . . .

. . Present*

Alonto

. . Present

Aquino

. . Present*

Azcuna

. . Present

Bacani

. . Present

Bengzon . ^. . .

. . Present*

Bennagen . . . .

. Present

Bernas

. Present

Rosario Braid . .

. Present

Brocka

. Absent

Calderon

. Present

Castro de . . . •

. Present*

Colayco

. Present

Concepcion . . .

. Present*

Davide

. Present*

Foz

. Present

Garcia

. Present*

Gascon

. Present

Guingona . . . .

. Absent

Jamir

. Present

Laurel

. Present*

Lerum

. Present*

Maambong . . .

. Present*

Monsod

. Present*

Natividad . . .

. . Present*

Nieva

Nolledo ....

. . Present

Ople

Padilla . / . . .

Quesada ....

. . Present

Rama

. . Present

Regalado ....

Reyes de los .

. . Present*

Rigos

Rodrigo ....

. . Present

Romulo ....

Rosales

Sarmiento . . .

. . Present

Suarez

Sumulong . . .

Tadeo

Tan

Tingson ....

Trefias

Uka

Villacorta . . .

Villegas

The President is present.

The roll call shows 29 Members responded to the call.

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of
a quorum.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous
session.

‘Appeared after the roll call

154

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we dis-
pense with the reading of the Journal of the previous
session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
approve the Journal of the previous session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
proceed to the Reference of Business.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary -General will read the Reference of
Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary-General read the following Com-
munications, the President making the corresponding
references:

COMMUNICATIONS

^tter from Mr. Teodoro Pascua of Konsiyensiya ng
Febrero &ete (KONFES), 4 Malinis St.^ UP Village,
1 man, Quezon City, submitting its proposal for the
text of Section 8, Article XV of the
Constitution regarding religious instruction in
public elementary and high schools.

~ Constitutional Commission

of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

letter from Mr. Satumino C. Aro of 12-A Camp
angwa. La Trinidad, Benguet, requesting inclusion of
provisions on social security to make small member-
employers beneficiaries by way of benefit payments in
times of sickness, disability, retirement and death.

514 - Constitutional Commission

of 1986)

Agencie^^”^”^'^^^^ Constitutional Commissions and

utter from Mr. Jaime A. Tabang of 216 M.L. Quezt
St, Maglhw, Mabalacat, Pampanga, seeking a cons
tutional provismn that would, in effect, make the b
exarnmees w,th borderline marks become members >
the bar provided they have proven to be competent
fields directly related to the legal profession

(Communication No. 515 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and
Agencies.

Letter from Mr. Jaime A. Tabang of 216 M.L. Quezon
St., Magiliw, Mabalacat, Pampanga, saying that civilian
employees of the AFP remain “casuals” in spite of their
civil service eligibilities and length of service and suggest-
ing the inclusion of provisions providing equal treatment
of all government employees regardless of the agency
hiring them.

(Communication No. 516 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Constitutional Commmissions and
Agencies.

Letter from Mr. Jose C. de Venecia, Jr., President of the
Petroleum Association of the Philippines, Inc., 6th
Floor Basic Petroleum Bldg., Alvarado St., Legaspi
Village, Makati, Metro Manila, containing the position
of the association on the exploration and development
of petroleum resources of the Philippines.
(Communication No. 5 1 7 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.

Twenty-seven letters from John Gerard R. de Dios,
Edwin F. Sarmiento, Eric S. Javier, Anmiel P. Galvo,
Joselito Ledesma, Terry A. Lafigura, Rosario Torr^,
William Intalco, Rojiel S. Lacanienta, Clifford
Pesalbon, Joselito S. Agbayani, Romeo V. Paragas,
Marlyn Sarmiento, Aurora R. Guiang, Francis G. Bais,
Ramil T. Bruces, Ricky Paglicawan, Luis S. Salaz^,
Margarita R. Mangaliman, Victor Maricad, Rolando .
Nepomuceno, Jesus M. Pinlac, Marita Malpaya, Zenai a
B. Viray, Reynaldo N. Regresado, Anselmo V. Contre-
ras, and Ernesto C. Esteban, Jr. with their respective
addresses, all seeking to include in the Constitution a
provision obliging the State to protect the life of the
unborn from the moment of conception.

(Communication No. 518 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

Resolution No. 6 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Pampanga, requesting the Commission to respect the
six-year term given by the people to the incumbent
President and Vice-President.

(Communication No. 519 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory
Provisions.

Communication from the Philippine Social Science
Council, Inc., Don Mariano Marcos Avenue, UP
Diliman, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman, Dr. Caro-

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

155

lina G. Hernandez, submitting four recommendations,
to wit: (1) federal form of government composed of 12
autonomous regions; (2) equal rights of women with
men and protection of working women in relation to
their maternal functions; (3) deletion of the second
sentence in the Article on Bill of Rights, Section 1 (the
right to life extends to the fertilized ovum); (4) addition
of a ninth ray to the sun of the Philippine flag to
represent the Muslim and cultural communities.

(Communication No. 520 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Wilfredo C. Asuncion of Batac, Ilocos
Norte, proposing, among others, a presidential form of
government with a bicameral legislature, a six-year term
for the President with no reelection, creation of a Com-
mission on Appointments, and a four-year tenure for
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces.

(Communication No. 521 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Ricaredo G. Sodusta of Loreto, Agusan
del Sur, transmitting Resolution No. 06, S. 1986 of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Loreto, requesting the Constitu-
tional Commission to create a Ministry for Tribal Fili-
pinos that will cover all cultural minority tribes of the
country.

(Communication No. 522 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Communication from Imelda S. Dasalla of No. 1 1 7
Block 2, New Matina, Davao City, and 84 others urging
the Constitutional Commission to draft a Constitution
for a Federal Republic of Pilipinas.

(Communication No. 523 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. There is a request for a privilege speech
for two minutes on the occasion of the birthday of
former Senator Lorenzo Tanada. May I ask that Com-'
missioner Villacorta be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog-
nized.

„ QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

OF COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, as we are
about to approve the Article on Social Justice, the signi-

ficance of the conferment of the highest government
award, the Legion of Honor, Rank of Commander, to
former Senator Lorenzo Martinez Tanada, should not
pass unnoticed by the Constitutional Commission.

Former Senator Tanada as we all know, is one of the
greatest Filipinos of our time. Since the start of liis
public career, he has fought for the small people of our
society. Always championing basic human rights and
national sovereignty, he has battled the forces of
tyranny and foreign domination.

Even as he has advanced to the age of 88, he has been
unwavering in his social consciousness, his incorrupti-
bility and his commitment to freedom and nationalism.
Instead of stagnating in the premises and biases of his
generation, he has always been attuned and responsive
to the dynamic demands of changing times.

Senator Tanada has often said, “Life is too short, we
have to do our best for our people before we are sum-
moned by our Creator and are made to account for our
actions in our lifetime.” We are fortunate that in this
Constitutional Commission, we can benefit from the
parallel wisdom of his contemporaries in lawmaking:
Senators Sumulong, Alonto, Rodrigo, Padilla and
Rosales, and Speaker Laurel - statesmen of an era when
the values of delicadeza and selflessness in public life
prevailed.

In our work in this Commission, we have endeavored
to provide for the prevention of tyranny’s resurgence
in our country. We have also striven to enshrine people’s
power throu^ the institutionalization of sectoral rep-
resentation and people’s organizations, and have sought
to protect and guarantee the rights of laborers, farmers,
fishermen, women, youth, the middle class, the sick and
the disabled in our Article on Social Justice. Soon we
shall deliberate on the matter of giving local govern-
ments the importance that they deserve, and on articles
that will set our people free from foreign economic,
cultural and political encroachment. Let us draw our
inspiration from the exemplary example of our great
nationalist, Senator Lorenzo Tanada, who yesterday
said that his only birthday wish is “to see our country
truly liberated from foreign domination before I die.”

Madam President, I would like, therefore, to exhort
our colleagues in the Commission to support a resolu-
tion that this Representation will submit, congratulat-
ing Senator Taiiada for the highest state honor that he
has just received.

Thank you.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I move that we take up for considera-
tion Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on the Article
on Local Governments, submitted by the Committee on
Local Governments.

156

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we
proceed to consider the reports of the Committee on
Local Governments?

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner NoUedo is recog-
nized.

MR. JAMIR. After the phrase “all agricultural lands,”
I move to insert the words: EXCEPT COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

THE PRESIDENT. In other words, before the clause
“subject to such priorities.”

MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I thought we
would proceed to finish the amendments to the report
of the Committee on Social Justice before we take
up Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 because Com-
missioner Ople, who is one of the sponsors, has not yet
arrived.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.
It was 9:59 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:09 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)
Continuation

period of amendments

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Committee on
ocia Justice is now ready to entertain the motion for
reconsideration. I ask that Commissioner Jamir be
recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog-
nized.

MR. JAMIR. Thank you. Madam President.

I move to reconsider the approval of the secon
sentence of Section 5, appearing on page 2 of the drafi

CTAT EXCEPT COMMEF

RESIDENTIAL after th
phrase all agncultural lands.”

objection? (Silence

The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Commissioner Suarez is recognized

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we hear the
proposed amendment again from the distinguished
Gentleman?

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, we realize the merit
of the proposal, but this has been repeatedly stated in
the explanation given by the members of the Commit-
tee, so we would rather that we leave this matter to the
floor for appreciation.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Will the distinguished proponent yield
to some clarificatory questions so we can vote intelli-
gently?

MR. JAMIR. Willingly.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDE. Under the proposed Article on the
National Economy and Patrimony, land should be classi-
fied into timber, mineral, national park, and agricul-
tural. If this particular proposal is adopted, all lands
may further be classified into residential, commercial,
agricultural and so on.

MR. JAMIR. The term “COMMERCIAL, INDUS-
TRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LANDS” is merely part of
the broader term “agricultural lands.”

MR. DAVIDE. Consequently, Congress now may
classify “all agricultural lands” as residential, commer-
cial and so on, or the bigger portion of the agricultural
land as commercial or residential, to defeat the pur-
pose of the concept of agrarian land reform.

MR. JAMIR. No, Madam President. This is preceded
by the word EXCEPT. That means to say that with
regard to the broad term “agricultural lands,” these are
the only exceptions.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. But Congress may now classify
what are agricultural, residential and commercial lands,
thus reducing the area or the coverage of agricultural
lands and what may be available for land reform.

MR. JAMIR. I do not really think so.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

157

MR. DAVIDE. We submit that it might dilute further
the concept ofland reform.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com-
missioner Bernas be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. Will the proponent entertain a few
questions?

MR. JAMIR. Willingly.

FR. BERNAS. In proposing to exempt agricultural,
commercial and residential lands, would that not affect
the intent of the fonner Section 11, which is now
Section 10, on urban land use? In the course of our
deliberations on this section on urban land reform
and housing, we deliberately used the word “reform”
and not “use” so that it would involve not merely
zoning. It was very clear that the intent was to make
possible the expropriation of urban land, residential
land and even commercial land for purposes of distribu-
tion and resale. If we exempt commercial and residential
lands from distribution under Section 5, in effect, we
negate the possibility of urban land reform.

MR. JAMIR. My purpose in introducing that amend-
ment is merely to clarify that, under existing laws and
our jurisprudence, these three kinds of agricultural lands
really form part of the agricultural lands but they are
considered an exception to that broader term.

FR. BERNAS. But, precisely, the intention of the
Article on Social Justice is to go beyond existing law.
And now, the purpose of the Gentleman’s amendment is
to fossilize the existing law, and thereby render impossi-
ble the fulfillment of the goals of urban land reform.

MR. JAMIR. That was not the intention. In fact, if I
remember correctly, during the interpellation, when I
was attempting to insert the word “ARABLE” between
the words “all” and “agriculture,” the Committee stated
that commercial, industrial and residential lands are not
really included. I would like to clarify that.

FR. BERNAS. That, of course, is correct. But then
subsequent to that we considered urban land reform.
The proper consideration of commercial and residential
lands should be perhaps under urban land reform and
housing.

MR. JAMIR. It is far beyond my intention to limit
the coverage of agrarian land reform.

FR. BERNAS. It may not be the intention, Madam
President, but it is the effect.

MR. JAMIR. I really do not think so, because at any
rate, our laws and jurisprudence already have instituted
these as parts merely of agricultural lands.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, it is still my conten-
tion that the introduction of that amendment will
seriously impair, if not negate, the possibility of urban
land reform and housing reform.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other comment?

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, I suggest that we
submit it to a vote.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recog-
nized.

MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, this Com-
mission has been castigated by various farmer groups for
instituting a weak agrarian reform program. The Federa-
tion of Free Farmers and other nationwide peasant
groups have issued statements criticizing this Com-
mission for instituting a weak and flabby agrarian
reform program. Madam President, now we are in-
troducing another amendment to further weaken the
agrarian reform. A few days ago, we instituted amend-
ments that tend to weaken agrarian reform with pro-
visions like “the State shall by law”; “subject to such
priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress
may prescribe”; the proviso “taking into account eco-
logical, developmental or equity consideration”; and
“just compensation.”

Madam President, to me this is another attempt to
weaken agrarian reform. We will be increasing the
sorrow and the sadness of our farmers, of our people,
if we accept this amendment. With due respect to
Commissioner Jamir, I object to the introduction of
that amendment.

MR. PADILLA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recog-
nized.

MR. PADILLA. The proposed amendment submitted
by Commissioner Jamir has reference to Section 5 under
agrarian land reform. The proposed amendment does
not refer to Section 10 or 11 under Urban Land Use
and Housing Program, so they are two distinct sections.
For Commissioner Bernas to say that Commissioner
Jamir’s insertion in Section 5 will affect the provision
on urban land use and housing is not exactly accurate
because the proposed amendment is on Section 5 and
not on Section 10 or 11. With regard to the provi-
sion that says “encourage and undertake the just dis-
tribution of all agricultural lands,” I recall that I
suggested the elimination of the word “all” and Com-

158

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

missioner Jamir suggested to make it applicable to
“ARABLE” agricultural lands. These proposals were
unfortunately not approved. But definitely this sub-
classification of agricultural land to residential, com-
mercial and industrial is not or should not be covered
by agrarian land reform.

So I am in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Jamir.

allowed to remain commercial for commercial pur-
poses, industrial for industrial purposes, and residential
for residential purposes. That is my contention.

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. May I just inform the honor-
able Commission that under Article XIV, Section 10 of
the 1973 Constitution, lands of the public domain are
clarified into agricultural, industrial or commercial,
residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or forest and
grazing lands, and such other classes as may be pro-
vided by law. Unless the intention of the Committee
on the Nation^ Economy and Patrimony is to do away
with this classification which I think is a good classifica-
tion, then there should be no question about the
^endment being proposed by Commissioner Jamir
because it is so classified under the 1973 Constitution.

Tffi PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recog-
nized.

MS. AQUINO. Thank you. Madam President.
Will the proponent yield to some questions?

MR. JAMIR. Willingly.

MS. AQUINO. Madam President, there is settled
junsprudence on the definition of “agricultural land”
in the case of Krivenco vs. the Register of Deeds that
would define agricultural land to include commercial,
industrial and residential lands. My concern is in the
absence of settled jurisprudence delimiting the para-
meters of what are commercial, industrial and
residential lands which, in effect, would get in the way
of the effective implementation of Sections 5 and 1 1 .

For the enlightenment of the Committee, what d
Commissioner Jamir intend to cover by reference
commercial, industrial and residential lands, if only
se e parameters of these concepts and classificati
would be, in effect, granting to Congi

^ statutory authority to set tl

own clysification m the absence of guidance fr
junsprudence and the law

MR. JAMIR. I know that commercial, industrial and
residentid lands are included in the broad term “agri-
cultural lands, but considering the particular character
of these parcels of land, they should not be included in
the land subject to agrarian reform. They should be

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President, in answer to the
question asked by Commissioner de los Reyes, it is the
intent of the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony to remove many of the categories that were
mentioned in the 1973 Constitution. As I reported on
another occasion, our recommendation in the commit-
tee report is to have only four classifications; namely,
mineral, timber, agricultural, and if the body approves
it, the new classification of national parks. The back-
ground behind this recommendation is that in the last
regime, the government was very free in reclassifying
all types of agricultural lands into residential and
resettlement, and we felt that we should limit that
ability of Congress or the executive. I would really be
hesitant to introduce that exception because there are
a lot of rural areas right now where we can actually have
industrial and residential and commercial activities. I
think we should just depend on the wisdom of Confess
to consider “developmental or equity considerations” so
that we need not completely tie the hands of the
government in considering some rural areas that can be
subject to land reform even if some people may want to
introduce land reform in specific rural sites.

I do object to the amendment. I think it will unduly
limit the ability of the government to introduce land
reform in specific rural sites.

MR. RAMA. Madam President,
missioner Bengzon be recognized.

I ask that Com-

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recog-
nized.

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, I am a member of
the Committee and I would like to state here what the
intent of the Committee was when it proposed the
urban land reform and housing and agrarian land
reform. When we discussed this provision on urban land
reform and housing, what we had in mind were the
urban poor - people who have no houses, who are land-
less, who are not professional squatters, but are squat-
ting on idle lands in the city, who have been there for
many years, and people who have gotten into these idle
lands, paying certain nominal amounts to the land-
owners. We were not thinking of the office spaces, for
example, in Makati.

I appreciate the concern of Commissioner Jamir and I
understand that what he has in mind and his apprehen-
sion is that this might cover lands which are definitely
and publicly known to be office spaces or commercial

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

159

spaces. However, that apprehension is already eased by
the last portion of Section 5 which has given Congress
the prerogative to prescribe certain terms, taking into
account the ecological, developmental and equity con-
siderations when it passes laws on agrarian reform and
urban reform. And, therefore, in order not to comph-
cate the matter further, considering that the appre-
hension of Commissioner Jamir is taken care of by the
last portion of Section 5, and reading into the record
the intent of the Committee when it proposed the
section on urban land refonn and housing to the effect
that it was really the intention not to cover these office
spaces and industrial sites but those lands which are in
the cities and in the urban areas which are idle, which
could properly be expropriated by the government for
tenement housing, then we believe. Madam President,
that there is no need for that amendment.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, there has been suffi-
cient debate and discussion of the proposed amend-
ment.

THE PRESIDENT. May we know from Commissioner
Jamir if he insists on his amendment so that we can
determine, if he will submit it to a vote.

MR. JAMIR. Yes, Madam President. I wish to submit
it to a vote.

Mr. SARMIENTO. Madam President, before we vote
on the issue, may I just ask the Committee one clarifica-
tory question.

the PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. SARMIENTO. A few seconds ago. Commissioner
Bengzon stated that industrial sites are exempted from
the scope of urban land reform. May I know if it is the
intention of the Committee for the urban land reform
to cover only idle lands in the city?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended for a few
minutes.

Jt was 10:30 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:36 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Colay-
co would like to have the last say on the proposed
amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Colayco is recog-
nized.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President.

According to Commissioner Bengzon, the Committee
understands or agrees that areas devoted to commercial
or industrial purposes are not to be included in the
agrarian and urban reform. Am I correct?

MR. BENGZON. Yes. Areas which are already being
used for commercial and industrial sites are not included
in this definition because the intent of the Committee
was to. take care of the urban poor, the homeless. For
example, if there is a specific area already devoted to
industrial purposes and with factories all around, but
within that cluster of factories there is a vacant land, it
is up to Congress now to determine whether for the
interest of the community that land should be expro-
priated wherein a tenement housing will be built for the
workers around.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you.

So, what is wrong with clarifying that point?

MR. BENGZON. Madam President, we will get into
a lot of complications because there will be a million
and one situations like that.

MR. COLAYCO. There will be more complications, if
we do not clarify this point.

MR. BENGZON. Congress has the right to reclassify
those lands as the circumstances would warrant. We
cannot put all of those restrictions here.

MR COLAYCO. There is just this problem - there
may be a situation where an industrial or commercial
area is not being used at the moment. This can be a big
problem if Congress now declares such an area as
residential or for urban housing.

MR. bengzon. Then if Congress declares so, that
means that it is for the best interest of everybody con-
cerned, and it is not for us here to tell them what to do.

MR. COLAYCO. I have another question. There are
many vacant residential areas around the elite enclaves,
the subdivisions in Metro Manila. Take the case of the
Ortigas property which is supposed to have been taken
over by the Marcoses. There was a time when there were
many squatters in that area. Does the Committee envi-
sion the expropriation of similar areas for housing for
the poor?

MR. bengzon. We do not envision any situation of
that sort. We are leaving it precisely to Congress to
determine whether or not, given that particular situa-
tion, it would enhance the value of that land or the

160

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

interest of the squatters to stay in that particular area.
That is why I am saying that we leave the discretion to
Congress to decide what is best for the community as a
whole, both for the people who would want to squat
there and cut up that piece of land into small pieces for
themselves, and for the people who are already living
around that community. It is not up for us to dictate to
them what to do nor to envision every single situation.
That is why we “are leaving the matter to Congress.”
We feel that if we do include all the proposals of Com-
missioner Jamir here, we are complicating the situation
further. The more we define, the more we limit, and
the more we tie the hands of Congress.

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you for the Gentleman’s
view.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the body is ready to
vote on the proposed amendment.

Committee feels that there is no necessity for tlic in-
clusion of the three items mentioned by the proponent.
However, if the Gentleman insists, we will leave it to the
body to appreciate and evaluate the situation.

MR. JAMIR. Madam President, may 1 say one word?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recog-
nized.

MR. JAMIR. In view of the statement of Com-
missioner Suarez, may I just ask him, if I withdraw this
amendment, whether his explanation given during the
interpellation the other time on my proposal to add the
word “arable” is the Committee’s stand on the matter?
If the Gentleman would like to recall, he stated that the
term “commercial, industrial and residential lands” is
not included under agricultural lands.

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Villegas want
to seek recognition?

MR. VILLEGAS. I just wanted to add some informa-
tion that would allay the fears expressed by Com-
missioner Colayco.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. SUAREZ. Essentially, the characteristic of arabi-
lity is the controlling factor, insofar as the classification
of agrarian reform on agricultural lands is concerned.

MR. JAMIR. So, that explanation of the Gentleman
will stand; in that event, Madam President, I withdraw
the motion.

^^LLEGAS. Let us take, for example, that ver>
specific case of the Ortigas land. It would be highl>
niikely for Congress to consider the area for urban lane

S nno price of that land is more thar

’ .f. square meter. And because we have a ver\
about just compensation, it woulc
rioht • government to choose a property

hflv ^ rniddle of the Ortigas area. I think we wil
e o put all these provisions in the context of wha
7h' V ^PP^cd — just compensation. So, I do no
in ere is reason to be apprehensive, assuming tha
»^ongress really represents the people. We should havi
enough confidence in our government officials.

THE PRESIDENT. We are ready to vote now.

MR. RAMA. The Committee would like to state it
position.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President,
nized^ Pf^ESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.

In view of the many explanations given on recor
■"‘''Pretation ot the word “agricultun
lands m relation to commercial, industrial and res
dentia lands and, further, i„ relation to the imph
mentation of the urban land reform program of th
government together with the agrarian reform, th

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT. The proposed amendment is with-
drawn.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Foz be recognized for another amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized.

MR. FOZ. Madam President, before I actually state
my proposed amendment, I would like to make some
statements in response to certain statements expressed
in some quarters. I wish to respond to the statements
expressing fears and misgivings over the consequences of
our provision on urban land reform which we have
approved as part of the Article on Social Justice and
which the government is called upon to carry out when
the new Constitution is approved. These fears and ap-
prehensions, I submit, arise from a lack of appreciation
of the proper role of an urban land reform program.

The objectives of an urban land program, as I have
mentioned them before, are to liberate our human
communities from blight, congestion and hazard, and to
promote their development and modernization to bring
about the optimum use of land as a rational resource for
public welfare, rather than as a commodity of trade
subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use; and
to acquire lands necessary to prevent the speculative
buying of land for public welfare; and to enlist the sup-
port of the private sector in responding to community
requirements in the use and development of urban lands

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

161

and in providing housing for the people. The foremost
concern then is the problem of blighted, congested
urban areas or communities. Our provision precisely
states that it is a program of urban land reform and
housing, aimed at making available affordable housing
and basic services to the underprivileged and homeless
citizens.

The fear has been expressed by small landowners
or small property owners, who have two-door or more
apartments being rented out to tenants, that the govern-
ment would take over their property. This concern is
not new because time and again, small apartment
owners who, by the way, are numerous have been
voicing the same fear but I say that there is no ground
for such fear. The government will certainly be con-
cerned with the big estates and properties in urban
centers; and under well-developed jurispmdence, the
State is to be limited to this type of land insofar as
government expropriation of land is concerned.

If we have provided in the provision on agrarian
reform an assurance to the srhall landowners that the
State shall respect their rights in determining the reten-
tion limits of agricultural lands, should we not likewise
provide even a short provision in the case of small urban
landowners that their rights shall also be respected and
protected by the State? These small landowners or
property owners may be said to belong to the middle
class of our urban centers. They are retirees, veterans,
teachers, employees, who have used their lifetime
savings or have borrowed from banks small loans to
build houses or even small apartments, a portion of
which they have rented out to some other people so
that they can derive some income when they retire
or even during their retirement.

Therefore, Madam President, I propose that we add
to Section 1 1 , which we have already approved, a new
sentence to read as follows: THE STATE SHALL
respect THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY
OWNERS. This amendment is coauthored by Com-
missioners Monsod and Trenas. By the way, this has
. already been cleared with the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may we just clarify
two points: When the Gentleman mentioned property
owners, was he referring to owners of lots and houses or
only to lots?

MR. FOZ. Both.

MR. SUAREZ. And would the Gentleman leave to
Congress, as we did in applying the provisions on
agrarian reform, the determination of what would
constitute a small property owner?

The Committee accepts the proposed amendment.
Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee accepts.

MR. SUAREZ. Yes, Madam President.

MR. VILLEGAS. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villegas is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLEGAS. Could I just propose an amendment
to the amendment. Since property is too general, could
we introduce an adjective and say: “REAL ESTATE
PROPERTY OWNERS”?

THE PRESIDENT. What does Commissioner Foz or
the Committee say?

MR. FOZ. I think there is no difference. Actually, it
is a little redundant to say “SMALL REAL ESTATE
PROPERTY OWNERS” here.

MPv. SUAREZ. Would Commissioner Villegas state
the proposed amendment to the amendment?

MR. VILLEGAS. “THE STATE SHALL RESPECT
THE RIGHTS OF SMALL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY
OWNERS.”

MR. SUAREZ. Would the word “PROPERTY” not
be included in the words “REAL ESTATE”?

MR. VILLEGAS. No.

MR. SUAREZ. It is the other way around.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. MONSOD. This sentence is proposed to be in-
cluded in the same section defining the rights of fanners
to urban land reform and housing. So in that context
it would only refer to real property.

MR. VILLEGAS. I will not insist on the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Gentleman now restate
the proposed amendment so that we can proceed to
vote.

sentence: “THE STATE
SHALL RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF SMALL PRO-
PERTY OWNERS ”

MR. FOZ. That is right.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. SUAREZ. We reiterate the Committee accepts
the proposed amendment.

162

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this pro-
posed amendment which has been accepted by the
Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amend-
ment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we take a
vote on the entire Section 1 1 .

After consultation with the Committee and also with
Commissioner Regalado who sponsored the last amend-
ment, we agreed that this formulation reflects the
intention of everyone.

MR. GASCON. Commissioner Bemas, is it not “THE
STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE”?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Are we through with aU the
reservations? Have we taken up aU the reserved amend-
ments?

MR. SUAREZ. One more reservation. Madam Pres-
ident.

THE PRESIDENT. Can we take that up now?

MR. RAMA. We can take it up now. May I ask that
Commissioner Bemas be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bemas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I call the attentioi
of the Commission to the third paragraph, page 38 o:
e oumal last Saturday. The amendment I am abou
o propose is in effect cosponsored by Commissioner;

’ Garcia and also Commissioner Regalado whc
gave the last amendment to this provision last Saturday

j amendment, let me just give th(

nou of what I am about to propose. In the inter

it uf ^^de by Commissioner Rodrigo last Saturday
thic ^ ^ was not the intention o;

dilute or diminish the right;
Wtir.^ ^aranteed in the Bill of Rights, particularly
DPoni f Section 9, which guarantee the right: o
rnnf ^ ^®^®ci3tions and unions for purposes no

nr> 1 the guarantee which says tha

^ passed abridging the right of the peoph

roa f assemble and petition the government fo:
redress of gnevances.

thieve object of my proposal is precisely to rephras<
alrpnHw diminishing what w(

DToiert same time it will more clearly

a we hope to add in this provision.

sp^tin^TthT^*^^ parts. The first involves i

of both Darts “ito two, and then a rewordini

this way: THE RIGHT OF THE^^^ 4Nn thf»
BLE PARtIci'patION AND REASONA

TR PATTON OF FACILITATE THl

CREATION OF ADEQUATE CONSUI TATTOT'
MECHANISMS. DN8ULTATIOI

FR. BERNAS. “THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW,
FACILITATE THE CREATION OF ADEQUATE
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.”

We would like to avoid the use of the words “make
possible” because it gives the impression that these
consultation mechanisms are not possible unless the
State takes action by law. As a matter of fact, these
consultation mechanisms are already in existence, and
the role we are giving to the State is mere facilitation,
not necessarily creation of these consultation mechan-
isms.

MR. SUAREZ. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recog-
nized.

MR. SUAREZ. Since the proposed amendments
would be reflective of the thinking of the Committee,
the Committee decides to accept the proposals. Madam
President.

MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. I would like to have some clarifica-
tions.

THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDE. The emphasis of my question will be
on “THEIR ORGANIZATIONS” - “THEIR ORGANI-
ZATIONS” would refer specifically to independent
people’s organizations as defined in the preceding sen-
tence.

FR. BERNAS. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. Would the Gentleman agree to using
the word ESTABLISHMENT instead of “CREATION”?

FR. BERNAS. That is with respect to the second

sentence.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, to the second sentence.

FR. BERNAS. The sense is the same; I would have no
difficulty with that.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11,1 986

163

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you.

FR. BERNAS. But for me the more important word
is FACILITATE.

MR. SUAREZ. Is Commissioner Bemas accepting the
amendment?

MR. MONSOD. May I just ask a question of the
proponent, Madam President.

Would it change the sense of the sentence if we
simply say, “THE STATE SHALL FACILITATE
ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS” with-
out having to say “CREATION OR ESTABLISH-
MENT”?

FR. BERNAS. First of all, the phrase is “THE
STATE SHALL, BY LAW.”

MR. MONSOD. “THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW,
FACILITATE ADEQUATE CQNSULTATIQN ME-
CHANISMS.” Do we need the word “CREATION”
there?

FR. BERNAS. There are really two steps. First, we
have the creation of the consultation mechanisms, and
then the facilitation of the functioning of those me-
chanisms.

THE PRESIDENT. Is this a new section or substitu-
tion for a section?

FR. BERNAS. A substitution for Section 20, Madam
President. So, the first sentence will read: THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO
effective AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION
at ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND
economic DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE

abridged.

Could we take action on that?

THE PRESIDENT. There are two sentences.

FR. BERNAS. There is a second sentence. Madam
President.

THE PRESIDENT. Is this clear to all the Com-
missioners?

MR. OPLE. Madam President.

the PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE. Thank you.

I am for this amendment which I think better reflects
the intent of the entire Commission, if I may say so. But
for purposes of the records, we should clarify the mean-
ing of the word ‘PEOPLE.” Do we refer to the people as

the source of sovereignty from which all sovereignty
emanates?

FR. BERNAS. Precisely, yes.

MR. OPLE. I think in the usual construction, the
people in this case constitute themselves into an elec-
torate for the purpose of electing a government to pass
policy questions through their representatives in, let us
say, the legislature. But in this case we refer to people
and their organizations. Is there no distinction at all
between the “people” contemplated in the earlier
definition that I gave from which all sovereignty
emanates and the people here as, let us say, the
“people” as a great public?

FR. BERNAS. The people are larger than just merely
the electorate because the electorate consists of those
who are qualified to vote. The broader word PEOPLE
would include even those who are under age, and the
guarantee in the Bill of Rights covers all people.

MR. OPLE. We are speaking, therefore, of people in
the more generic sense. Perhaps, the classic formulation
of that was what Walter Lippman put forth as a “nation-
al society” consisting of generations present, past and
future, as well.

FR. BERNAS. Yes; and that adequately defines the
section on the declaration of principles when we speak
of sovereignty residing in the people.

MR. OPLE. In empowering people’s organizations to
participate in all levels of decision-making, this pre-
sumably rises vertically from, let us say, the barangay
level to the regional level and to the national level.

FR. BERNAS. We are not putting any limitation.

MR. OPLE. I just wanted to make this clarification.

Thank you very much. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Are we now ready to vote?

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, before we vote,
I would like to ask the Committee a question.

the president. Please proceed.

MR. ROMULO. Since this now has been reformulated,
I would like to ask, in the event the people’s organiza-
tion is not consulted, what the effect of that noncon-
sultation with regard to either the decision made by the
bureaucrats or the law passed by Congress would be.

MR. GARCIA. The Committee feels that in any
decision-making that will be relevant, the thoughts, the
aspirations and the participation of people are essential
for the decision-making to be in the right direction.

164

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

MR. ROMULO. Granted, but suppose they are not
consulted?

MR. GARCIA. Yes, we always say that consultation
mechanisms be reasonable because one cannot consult
every single individual on a specific question. But the
effort of decision-makers or of government leaders
should be to consult the people, whenever it is possible.

MR. ROMULO. Yes. Assuming that they do not, I
just want to know what is the effect of nonconsultation.

MR. GARCIA. Then they must suffer the conse-
quences. When the people later on believe that the
decisions made without proper consultation are con-
trary to their interests, then they may be voted out of
office.

MR. ROMULO. So, it does not nullify the law or it
does not make the decision nonenforceable.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President, this section does
not say that any group who claims to be a people’s
organization must be consulted for a law or decision to
be valid or implemented. As I think Commissioner
Garcia said, there is the criteria of practicability as well.
Furthermore, in our Constitution, we also gave the
people the right of initiative and referendum.,

MR. ROMULO. Precisely.

MR. MONSOD. So, this is another way by which they
can express their disapproval of any decision or law.

MR. ROMULO. So, what the Gentleman is saying is
that this is a desired objective and if it is not fulfilled
then the people must go to those mechanisms provided
in our Constitution.

MR. MONSOD. Yes, the operative phrase is “WITHIN
THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK.”

MR. GARCIA. Exactly. There are many levels on the
^enas of participation. It can be electoral. It can be, as
m the past when we saw street manifestations, in the
orm of demonstrations. And right now, in many parts
u ij ® especially during the public hearings, we

• + people. In fact, such has been

instituted m the different ministries as I informed you

MR. ROMULO. Thank you.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I ask a few
questions?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

soe^if second question is, since we

nni*f* 1 u levels of participation, not only

economic and so on, to what extent
is apply in the ladder of decision-making?

The desired objective is for people on
ai ton, ^ level, regional level and nation-

. ^ ® consulted so that there will be an effective

we can check whether the decisions
needs are relevant and responsive to people’s

ROMULO. So, if we take an agency of the
g emment, let us say a ministry on the national level,
require that the people be consulted from the
om o top of that ladder of decision-making?

for example, national
pxatTmiA Tu^ XM- ■ ''^ouid hke to give a very concrete

ducted a consuSuolTwith
tions composed of healTh 1 c

and so on on th« !• 'workers, consumers, doctors,
decisions to hp • ^^/^onal level. And later on, for the

further and refmeT ttMe'"There‘''° Ministry discussed
fte local and municipal

The level may be vertical on that score - geographical
or horizontal when it involves different sectors of
society, multisectoral or sectoral.

MR. RODRIGO. The phrase “WITHIN THE DE-
MOCRATIC-FRAMEWORK” is a little too general. In
our Declaration of Principles, we state that our govern-
ment is a republican government, which means a rep-
resentative government wherein sovereignty resides in
the people; but then the people elect their representa-
tives to the legislature, to the executive department,
and these representatives are the ones who perform the
functions of government. We would like the people to
have some reserve powers as was stated by Com-
missioner Monsod. We are providing for initiative, for
referendum, even for recall. And now, we are providing
in this proposed section another direct participation of
the people. What is the meaning of this “participation”?
It seems that this “participation” should not be initiated
by the government, but by the people themselves or by
organizations. If the organizations want to participate,
they should not wait for the government, let us say, for
the legislature, to invite them or to consult them.

MR. GARCIA. We agree.

MR. RODRIGO. So, the legislative department does
not have the duty to call them and say, “please come,
we want to consult you.” If the people do not go there
and express their views . . .

MR. GARCIA. Precisely, when we were explaining
the role and rights of people’s organizations, we are say-
ing that it will be the people, their organizations, which

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

165

are involved. They should not see their participation in
government stopping when they cast their vote; it goes
beyond electoral politics. The only thing we are asking
for in this section is to facilitate a consultation mechan-
ism so that there is a more recognized effort, a more
visible and viable effort, so that this consultation
mechanism is institutionalized.

MR. RODRIGO. So, it is very, very clear that we do
not want to depart from a republican form of govern-
ment, which means a representative form of govern-
ment. We want more people participation and the
participation should come from the people.

MR. GARCIA. Exactly. In fact, it strengthens the
democratic exercise.

MR. RODRIGO. Thank you.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. I would like to strengthen the
position of Commissioner Garcia and Commissioner
Monsod with respect to the framework within which
people’s organizations participate. In addition to the
democratic framework, we are saying that it is in the
pursuit of social justice. That is why we were insistent on
the original formulation that the provision on people’s
organizations should start with the introduction, “In the
pursuit of Social Justice within the democratic frame-
work,” so that we get out of the framework of party
politics. It is not just within the framework of party
politics that people’s organizations can participate. We
have had a number of experiences where people’s or-
ganizations have already been participating at various
levels. A concrete example would be the construction
of huge infrastructure projects like dams. It has been
the case that some form of consultation takes place but
in the final implementation of these programs, the con-
sultations are not conducted. We are saying that the
people should be able to initiate from the lowest, as it
were, up to the highest level, if necessary, so their
voices will be heard effectively.

Again based on our experiences, in a number of cases,
there is lack of adequate information. Information is
never provided for the people on which to base their
judgment on these infrastructure projects. We are also
saying, therefore, that given this framework, social
justice and the democratic values could be pursued,
people s participation could be more effective, and the
role of government here would be to facilitate that form
of consultation outside of party politics.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Bernas
would like to have his last say on this.

FR. BERNAS. No, I was asking for a vote. But if the
Chair wishes, I can restate the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT. Are we ready to vote?

MR. RAMA. Tlie body is ready to vote.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the Committe please read the
section now?

MR. SUAREZ. We yield to Commissioner Bernas,
Madam President.

FR. BERNAS. The section will read: “THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO
EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION
AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE
ABRIDGED. THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILI-
TATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADEQUATE
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.”

VOTING

THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the
amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No
Member raised his hand.)

The results show 25 votes in favor and none against;
the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move that we vote
on the whole Article on Social Justice, as suggested by
one of the committee members.

THE PRESIDENT. Mr. Floor Leader, have all those
reserved amendments been submitted already?

MR. RAMA. Yes, Madam President. There are no
more reserved amendments.

MR. MONSOD. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recog-
nized.

MR. MONSOD. May we request that we first dis-
tribute to the Commissioners a clean copy of the
Article before we vote on Second Reading?

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. So, we wiU vote on it later as soon
as we have a clean copy of the entire Article on Social
Justice with all the amendments that have been ap-
proved.

166

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

Meanwhile, the Giair suspends the session for a few
minutes.

It was 11:15 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:50 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE
NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS,

and Proposed Resolution No. 511, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI-
TUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolutions
per C.R. Nos. 21 and 25.)

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 21

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. RAMA. I move that we suspend the session until
two o’clock this afternoon to listen to the sponsorship
of the Committee on Local Governments.

The Committee on Local Governments to which were referred
Proposed Resolution No. 182, introduced by Honorable Tingson,
entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the session is suspended until two
o’clock in the afternoon.

It was 11:51 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:16 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF

PROPOSED RESOLUTION NOS. 470 AND 511
(Article on Local Governments and
Additional Provisions Thereto)

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

^ ^ove that we consider Commitb
anH 1 Proposed Resolution Nos. 41

Govemm ^^t Committee on Loc

ThlaafSs^nml^theM^^^ objection? (SUence)
me motion is approved

R'“'“«on Nos. 470 and
.act tn order. With the permission of the body
the Secretary-General wUl read only the title of the
proposed resolutrons without prejudice to inserting in
the Record the whole text thereof. ^

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. Proposed Resolution

No. 470, entitled:

Proposed Resolution No. 329, introduced by Honorable Tingson,
entitled:

RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE BARAN-
GAYS TO RETAIN A PORTION OF TAXES AND
OTHER REVENUES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PUR-
POSES,

Proposed Resolution No. 361, introduced by Honorable Trefias,
entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTI-
TUTION A NEW PROVISION EMPOWERING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO LEVY AND COLLECT TAXES
UNIQUE, DISTINCT AND EXCLUSIVE TO THEM AND
TO SPEND THE REVENUES RAISED THEREFROM IN
ORDER TO MAKE LOCAL AUTONOMY REALLY
MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE ,

has considered the same and has the honor to report them back
to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommenda-
tion that attached Proposed Resolution No. 470, prepared by the
Committee, entitled;

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE
NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS,

be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 182,
329 and 361 with Honorable Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson,
Rosales, Alonto, de Castro, Bennagen, Rigos, Regalado, Jamir and
Ople as authors.

Respectfully submitted:

(Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo
Chairman

Committee on Local Governments

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

167

PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 470

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE
NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOV-
ERNMENTS,

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Com-
mission in session assembled, to incorporate the following Article
on Local Governments:

ARTICLE

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

SECTION 1 . The provinces, cities, municipalities, barrios and
the autonomous regions are the territorial and political subdivi-
sions of the Republic of the Philippines.

SEC. 2. Legislative bodies of local governments shall have
sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law.

SEC. 3. No autonomous region, province, city, municipality,
or barrio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with criteria
established by law, and subject to approval by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose in the unit or units
directly affected.

SEC. 4. The President of tire Phihppines shall exercise general
supervision over local governments to ensure that laws are faith-
fully executed.

SEC. 5. Local goveriunent units may group themselves, con-
solidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for
purposes commonly beneficial to them.

SEC. 6. Each government unit shall have the power to create
its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees and charges
subject to such guidelines as may be fixed by law.

SEC. 7. Local governments shall have the power to levy and
collect charges or contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to
them.

SEC. 8. Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local govern-
ments and they shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds
of the exploitation and development of the national wealth with-
in their respective areas. The share of local governments in the
national taxes shall be released to them automatically.

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 25

The Committee on Local Governments to which were referred
Proposed Resolution No. 15, introduced by Honorable de los
Reyes, Jr. and Maambong, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION WHICH WILL ASSURE RECOGNITION
OF THE CORDILLERA REGION, PREVENT ITS
FUTURE DISMEMBERMENT AND FOR OTHER PUR-
POSES,

Proposed Resolution No. 17, introduced by Honorable Azcuna,
entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR REGIONAL GOVERN-
MENTS,

Proposed Resolution No. 138, introduced by Honorable Nolledo,
entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INSERT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION
PROVISIONS ON MEANINGFUL AND AUTHENTIC
DECENTRALIZATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY
ADOPTING WITH MODIFICATIONS THE PROPOSED
PROVISIONS BY THE UP LAW CONSTITUTION
PROJECT,

Proposed Resolution No. 176, introduced by Honorable Ben-
nagen and Rosario Braid, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI-
TUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE STATE TO
ESTABLISH A GENUINE AUTONOMOUS GOVERN-
MENT IN THE CORDILLERA REGION WITHIN A DE-
MOCRATIC AND SOVEREIGN FILIPINO NATION,

Proposed Resolution No. 178, introduced by Honorable Rosario
Braid, entitled:

RESOLUTION DECLARING THE AUTONOMY OF
REGIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AS
THE BASIC FRAMEWORK OF THE POLITICAL STRUC-
TURE OF THE STATE,

Proposed Resolution No. 247, introduced by Honorable Maam-
bong, Natividad, de los Reyes and Ople, entitled:

RESOLUTION GRANTING FULL AUTONOMY TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS,

Proposed Resolution No. 394, introduced by Honorable Sarmien-
to, entitled:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTI-
TUTION AN ARTICLE RECOGNIZING AND DEFINING
THE RIGHTS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT,

Proposed I^esolution No. 409, introduced by Honorable Ople,
entitled:

RESOLUTION CREATING AUTONOMOUS REGIONS FOR
THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO AND THE PEOPLE OF
THE CORDILLERA HIGHLANDS AND PROVIDING
FOR OTHER AREAS OF AUTONOMY WITHIN
LARGER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS,

Proposed Resolution No. 414, introduced by Honorable Rama,
entitled:

RESOLUTION TO RESTORE THE PRE-MARTIAL LAW
POLICY OF ALLOWING VOTERS IN HIGHLY URBAN-
IZED CITIES TO VOTE FOR PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS,

has considered the same and has the honor to report them back
to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommenda-
tion that attached Proposed Resolution No. 5 1 1, prepared by the
Committee, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTI-
TUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE
ON LOCAL governments.

168

MONDAY, AUGUST 11 , 1 986

be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 15, 17,
138, 176, 178, 247, 394, 409 and 414 with Honorable Nolledo,
Calderon, Tingson, Rosales, Alonto, de Castro, Bennagen, Rigos,
Regalado, Jamir, Ople, de los Reyes, Jr., Maambong, Azcuna,
Rosario Braid, Natividad,Sarmiento and Rama as authors thereof.

Respectfully submitted:

(Sgd.) Jose N. Nolledo
Chairman

Committee on Local Governments
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 5 1 1

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONST!-
TUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLE
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Com-
mission in session assembled, to incorporate the following
sections in the Article on Local Governments, in addition to those
proposed in Resolution No. 470 (Committee Report No. 21):

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

SEC. 9. The legislature shall create autonomous region
sisting o provuices and cities with common historical, gee
I ^ tural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or othe
cteacte„«s wiftta ttie Wwork of and respecting th

rSpXr"'’’ ““ “

SEC. 10. The legislature shaU enact an Organic Act for th
nomous region in consultation with elective officials of th
p ovmces and cities within the region. This Organic Act shal
e asic structure of government for the autonomou
gion consisting of the regional executive department am
giona egislative assembly both of which shall be elective an<
representative of the constituent political units. The Organic Ac
niay ewise provide for a judicial system consisting of Courts o
jurisdiction within the autonomous region consisten
wi t e provisions of this Constitution on Judicial Power.

SEC. 1 1 . The President of the Philippines shall exercise genera
supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are fait!
fully executed.

its territorial jurisdiction, the autonomou
region shall have authority over the following:

(1) Administrative organization;

Regional taxation as provided for by law;
egional urban and rural planning and development;
e ion economic, social and cultural developmer
K ^^onomic development to policies lai
y e National Economic Development Authoi

'*’y j

Establishment, maintenance and administration c
schools m the autonomous region-

Promotion and regulation of tourism within the regior
Establishment, operation and maintenance of region:
health, welfare and other social services;

( 2 )

(3)

(4)

(5)

( 6 )
(7)

(8) Protection of the environment in accordance with stand-
ards and regulations of the national government;

(9) Preservation of customs and traditions and culture
indigenous to the autonomous region;

(10) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the
promotion of the general welfare of the people of the
autonomous region.

SEC. 13. Without prejudice to the above provisions, and
except in areas of legislation exclusively belonging to the national
government such as foreign relations, the national defense cus-
toms, tariff, post and telecommunications, the autonomous
regions shall, by its regional assemblies, be authorized to legislate
on all other matters which concern the local administration of
such autonomous regions.

SEC. 14. The maintenance of peace and order within the
region shall remain the responsibility of the local chief executive
of each constituent unit who shall exercise supervision over local
police forces within the region. The defense of the region shall be
the responsibility of the national police or army. When circum-
stances so warrant, the regional government may establish its own
special forces subject to supervision by the national armed forces
and under such provisions as the law may provide. Such special
forces shall be under the command of the President of the
Philippines.

SEC. 15. All powers, functions, and responsibilities not
granted by this Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions
are vested in the National Government.

SEC. 16. The first legislature under this constitution shall,
within one year from election of its Members, pass the Organic
Acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cor-
dillera. The said legislature shall, within a period of not more
than six (6) months after the organization thereof, immediately
define the territorial jurisdiction of autonomous regions that may
be granted Organic Acts.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Committee Chairman, Com-
missioner Nolledo, is recognized.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO

MR. NOLLEDO. Before I proceed to deliver my brief
sponsorship remarks, I would like to state here that our
Committee made two reports. Committee Report
No. 21 covers, among others, the kinds of local govern-
ment units, their taxing powers and the provision on
coordination of different political units for their com-
mon benefits; while Committee Report No. 25 contains
the provisions on autonomous regions. After my brief
remarks. Madam President, the other members of the
Committee, namely, Commissioners Alonto and Ben-
nagen, will also give their own remarks to be concluded
by Commissioner Ople.

Before I proceed further, I would like to express the
Committee’s most profound gratitude to the governors
and city mayors of the League of Governors and City

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

169

Mayors whom I met at Quezon City and with whom I
had a two-hour dialogue. We would like to express our
gratitude to Mr. Rene Santiago of the Philippine Insti-
tute of Environmental Planners, Mr. Michael Mastura,
the Philippine Social Science Council, the Office of
Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities, especially
Minister Candu Muarip and Atty. Fausto Lingating.

Madam President, the cry for meaningful, effective
and forceful autonomy has been loud and clear all over
the country. That cry will no longer be a voice in the
wilderness. Let this 1986 Constitutional Commission
give a bold and unequivocal answer to that cry. The
report of the Committee on Local Governments is an
indictment against the status quo of a unitary system
that, to my mind, has ineluctably tied the hands of
progress in our country. It is claimed. Madam President,
that our linguistic and ethnic diversities are weaknesses
that can be strengthened by the unitary system; but I
say our varying regional characteristics are factors to
capitalize on to attain national strength througli decen-
tralization.

As stated by Mr. Rene Santiago of tlie Philippine
Institute of Environmental Planners, who appeared
several times before our Committee, a structure of socie-
tal organization must adopt to the people and not the
people to a preconceived model of organization. He
stated:

Filipinos are said to be highly individualistic, fractious,
ungovernable, and heir to numerous persuasions. A pluralist
society like ours would behave incongruously under the
unitary setup as many social scientists have observed to the
point of schizophrenia. It should be at home in a “federal-
ized environment.”

Decentralization gives hope to the poor. It disperses
political power and responsibility, just as wealth must
be equitably diffused. As Somacher, an economist, said:
“Centralization is mainly an idea of order while decen-
tralization, one of freedom.” As Rene Santiago ob-
served, centralization emphasizes the maintenance of
status quo for society to sustain itself, while decentrali-
zation promotes entrepreneurship and innovation.

Our unitary structure, indeed, gravitates toward
order that progress — national and local — becomes a
casualty. Because of our enormous and hardheaded
adherence to the unitary system foisted upon us by
the colonial powers in a span of several centuries,
Filipinos have found the idea of dictatorship appeal-
ing. That is why we always hear, and we seem to believe,
that we Filipinos respond better to a strong leader and
we find ourselves wittingly rammed through a situation
where our rights are despicably trampled upon and
where freedom becomes illusory and our dreams remain
empty and unfulfilled. Thus, despite our vast natural
resources and our great intellectual endowments, the
Philippines has lagged behind her Asian neighbors.

In our report, we have widened the taxing powers of
local governments. Thus, under our report, they can
impose taxes, fees and charges, with right of retention

and disbursements without undue interference from the
national government. They shall likewise be entitled to
share in the proceeds of exploitation and development
of the national wealth within their respective areas. We
also provided in the report that the share of local
governments in the national taxes be released to them
automatically. Our Committee did not adopt any provi-
sion authorizing the establishment of a metropolitan
government because we wanted to avoid overlapping of
functions. Moreover, putting together highly urbanized
cities infringes upon the principles of local autonomy
and decentralization. I, for one, believe that the Metro
Manila Commission, created under P.D. No. 824, was
truly a self-centered creation of the deposed dictator
Ferdinand Marcos who wanted to consolidate political
power over areas within Metro Manila as a gift to his
wife and inspired by the historical imperative that the
fall of the capital region will mean the end of their
imperial rule. The geopolitical area of Metro Manila,
however, may be maintained under a coordinating
agency as authorized by the provision of our committee
report that local government units may coordinate and
consolidate their efforts and services for purposes
beneficial to them.

Madam President, for the first time in the Philippine
Constitution, in favorable reaction to the needs of the
times and in recognition of the realities of Philippine
situation, we are mandating the legislature to create
autonomous regions within the framework of, and
respecting the, national sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.

Our Committee was tom between the question of
setting a fully federal form of government and the
question of merely establishing autonomous regions.
We decided to make our provisions flexible in the sense
that while we are mandating the creation of auto-
nomous regions, particularly of Muslim Mindanao and
the Cordilleras, we are opening an avenue towards full
federalization of the Republic of the Philippines by way
of creating several autonomous regions should Congress
decide to do so in the future. Commissioners Alonto,
Bennagen and Ople will explain further the need to set
up autonomous regions.

Madam President, the challenge of this generation is
brought forth before this august body. I fervently hope
and pray that this Commission will prove equal to the
challenge.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, may I request that Commissioner
Alonto be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Alonto is recog-
nized.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER ALONTO

MR. ALONTO. Madam President, there is nothing
more that I could add to the brilliant exposition of the

170

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

distinguished Chairman of our Committee. I only want
to add some historical experience I encountered when I
had the privilege of being honored as one of those that
have contributed to nation-building.

Madam President, the idea of a regional development
plan started in Congress in the year 1954. It was in that
year that the members of Congress of which I was a
humble member started to promote the idea of a
regional economic development in this country in the
course of our nation-budding. That experiment of
Congress developed the idea that a regional economic
development of our country is much more effective
than a centralized idea coming from the central
government.

It was in that period when the establishment of
different development authorities, starting with the
Mindanao Development Authority, was passed and
made into law by Congress. This also started the idea of
presenting before the nation builders of this country
that idea of the sociopolitical development of our
country based upon the concept of regional authority
or regional concept. Such concept started the idea that a
federal form of government would be more acceptable
m our country, taking into account the geographical
situation the composition of the society, and the
histoncal background of the Filipino society.

Based on a paper I read before one of the seminars
organized before the start of the 1971 Constitutional
Convention enhUed The Political Problems of the
u ura Minorities, Mao’s effective way of solving
tne problem of uniting and consolidating the multi-
anous sectors of our society would be some sort of a

tederal form of government. In this document, I stated
the following:

I can surmise this early that the strongest single factor
at prompted the call for this charter revision is the sense
of urgency felt by the different sectors that comprise the
society to find a solution to the state of disintegration
taking place in our midst.

It is then a must that in re-framing the same law, it
would be the highest sense of patriotism for every member
privileged to participate to analyze all the basic problems
t at confront our society, not the least important of which
IS t e problem of Philippine unity. Together, let us recon-
s met our political thoughts in order to reconstitute the
same to conform to the basic phUosophy of all the dif-
eren e ements that make up our society. Let us not hesi-

our governmental structure if
necessary, to make it conform to the basic ideals of the

“«tr t ? composmg our society. Let us abandon the
ai jacket to which we were plunged by our erstwhile
masters as a condition precedent to the grant of a political
freedom and which became the basic cause of our failure tc
imbue the society with the desirable sense of oneness anc
common destiny. For, unless we can imbue our people wit!
a sense of oneness and common destiny, there seems to bi
no possible avenue of containing the process of disintegra

tion that is going on in our very midst involving not only
the cultural minorities but the whole fabric of our society.

I daresay that if to achieve unity, it is necessary to divide
the country into several autonomous states bound together
by a common goal and sense of oneness, we should not
hesitate to do so. If unity cannot be achieved in a strictly
unitary system as experience has taught us, then by all
means let us revert to the only option left open for us —
UNITY IN DIVERSITY — which seems to be the goal fixed
for us by Divine Wisdom when our ancestors, belonging to a
common racial strain but speaking different tongues,
ventured through unchartered seas guided by the same
Divine Providence to these different islands separated by
natural barriers yet belonging to the same geographical
region. For the sake of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions, of precious lives of our kith and kin that were
sacrificed in the fields of battles to defend their newfound
paradise, for us, their progeny, let us forge that unity of the
anvil of necessity, perchance God Almighty, whose Provi-
dence controls the destiny of man and nation, grants that
we can preserve these beautiful Isles for the generations yet
to come.

In other words. Madam President, my very rationale
for standing on the principle that we must take into
account and into consideration the multifarious sectors
of our society, the multiplicity of ideology, the multi-
plicity of principles in our society to be able to struc-
ture our government is for each sector of the society to
make a basis of their cooperation in nation-building the
ideals that they preciously consider for themselves.

This is why in the different proposals to this Consti-
tutional Commission, I am most appreciative of those
proposals that will at least give autonomous freedom to
the different sections of, if not all over, the country,
but at least to start with, with those that in the course
of our nation-building have shown some disparate and
unrefusing and a highly Unitarian centralized authority
in this country.

I refer. Madam President, to the Muslims of Mindanao
and to some of our brothers in Northern Luzon who
adhere to the principle that in order to have real free-
dom, real justice and real democracy, each section of
our society must be given the chance and freedom to
develop the ideals they prize so much in life.

Madam President, I would like to lengthen my
remarks in support of the remarks of our distinguished
Chairman. However, I would just submit as part of the
Record some documents which are very pertinent to the
discussion we are now about to do. One of these is a
document entitled Position Paper No. 2, which discusses
the political problems of the cultural minorities in this
country.*

Another document is on the need for a national
community which was the essence of a speech that this
humble Representation delivered before the 1971
Constitutional Convention.*

♦See Appendix

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1, 1986

171

Another document I would like to submit as part of
the Record of this Constitutional Commission and as
part of my remarks is a document entitled Structure of
Government by Rev. Francisco Araneta, former Pres-
ident of the Ateneo de Manila.* This was submitted
before the 1971 Constitutional Convention, proposing a
federal form of government for the country.

The last document I would like to present is a speech
of a divine — some of the last prono'uncements of the
late Senator Benigno Aquino.* In that document, he
proposed a solution to the very perplexing problem
caused by the Muslims in this country which resulted
in the conclusion of the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 by
President Marcos and the Moro National Liberation
Front. This document clearly and articulately states that
the solution to the problem of the Muslims in this
country is spelled in the implementation of the Tripoli
Agreement, and suggests means and ways by which that
Tripoli Agreement would be implemented by the
government. These, I submit to this body, as part of my
short remarks and as part of the Record of this Consti-
tutional Commission.

Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity
for delivering my short remarks. I hope that the report
of this Committee would be acceptable to the Members
of this Constitutional Commission as a basic solution to
our problem of establishing real unity in Philippine
society.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Senator Alonto.

THE PRESIDENT. Let those documents referred to
by Commissioner Alonto be made part of the proceed-
ings.

MR. ABUBAKAR. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Abubakar
desire to be recognized?

MR. ABUBAKAR. Yes, because I would like to
strengthen the argument and the observation of both
speakers on local autonomy, that local autonomy has
been implemented in Mindanao and it has succeeded.
The Southern Autonomous Government in Mindanao,
composed of Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga and part of
Northern Zamboanga, has now a seat in Zamboanga,
with a legislative and executive chairman. It has solved
many of the agitations and problems of Southern Min-
danao. My remark is simply to supplement and to add
to the argument and presentation of the Chairman that
this is a working reality. Local autonomy is no longer
a theoretical concept in Southern Mindanao. There is
local autonomy whose seat is in Zamboanga; there is a
chairman of the executive council, and there is also a
legislative council. Each province in Southern Mindanao
is represented in the legislative seat in Zamboanga and
the representatives meet to enact measures for the good
of the region. So, as far as local autonomy is concerned.

it is a success in Mindanao and there is no reason why
we should not move forward to embrace further
provinces under the same aggrupation, powers and
delegation, so that in the end, the autonomous region
will take care of its own problems as we are now taking
care of our problem in Zamboanga, Sulu and Cotabato.
This would, in turn, spread the concept which will
ultimately be the force in forging the national unity that
the Filipinos have dreamed of and have achieved to a
certain extent. So, regional autonomy is now working in
Southern Mindanao.

Thank you.

MR. NOLLEDO. The next speaker. Madam President,
is the honorable Commissioner Bennagen.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER BENNAGEN

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you.

Actually, we have a number of arguments for creating
the autonomous regions. Many of these have to do with
efficiency and manageability, but we will discuss them
during the period of interpellations and period of
amendments.

Given the little time that I have, I will just read a
paper arguing for the granting of autonomous region
status to both the Cordilleras and the Bangsa Moro.

For the last several weeks, we have been deliberating
on matters that touch the life of every Filipino, bom
and unborn. Now, we will be deliberating on matters
which shall determine the fate and destiny of the Bangsa
Moro and the Cordillera people — a fate intertwined
with our own, and for the entire country, a future
which could spell war and fragmentation or a future of
peace and Justice for all. Away from the harsh realities
of the neglected and underdeveloped conditions of the
Cordilleras and of Mindanao, it is easy for us in the
comfort of this hall not to see how our decisions could
affect the lives of millions of people whom we do not
know. But I do know and have felt the overwhelming
passion of the Bangsa Moro to achieve recognition of
their right to self-determination. I have been witness to
the courage and perseverance of the CordUlera peoples
in their struggle for peace and justice. They see regional
autonomy as the answer to their centuries of struggle
against oppression and exploitation. For so long, their
names and identities have been debased. Their ancestral
lands have been ransacked for their treasures, for their
wealth. Their cultures have been defiled, their very lives
threatened, and worse, extinguished, all in the name of
national development; all in the name of pubhc interest;
all in the name of the common good; all in the name of
the right to property; all in the name of the Regalian
doctrine; all in the name of national security. These

*See Appendix

172

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1, 1986

phrases have meant nothing to our indigenous communi-
ties, except for the violation of their human rights.

I can recite a litany of their grievances which spans
centuries-poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and death
rates. But I will simply quote an old man from the
Cordilleras who said: “We asked the government for a
teacher, it did not give us one. We asked for some help
in fixing our roads, it did not send us any. We asked for
a doctor, it did not send us one. Instead, government
men came to build a dam and sent in the Philippine
Constabulary and the army. These, we did not ask for.”

There are statistics on the thousands of indigenous
communities displaced by plantations, hydroelectric
dams, mining and logging operations by virtue of state
laws, presidential decrees and letters of instructions. But
it will suffice to quote the eloquent voices of Bontoc
and Kalinga warriors. They say: “Long experience has
shown us that the outsiders’ law is not able to under-
stand us, our customs, and our ways. Always, the state
laws make just what is unjust, and make right what is
not right. We are planted here, rooted in sacred land.
All our dead are buried here. Now we are asked by the
government to allow our dead to be covered by the
waters of the Chico Dam Project. This is an impossible
request. The pvemment assures us that it will spare no
e ort to disinter the dead, to remove the remains to
new and better sites. It does not understand. The very
soil we tread on is the dust of our fathers. What kind of
9 tf agree to our annihilation as a

S K ■ the government, it

, ® ^ ^ doubted that we belong to the land

or mat we question our ancient law. If we are forcibly

rnn ^ that we will no longer

consider ourselves under the law.”

th forget that among the Bangsa Moro and

cof people were people who were massacred,

^^®®ted and imprisoned, tortured and raped,
th name of national security, law and order. For
e en ^e history of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
peop e IS a history of oppression and discrimination; but
eirs too is a history of heroic resistance against sub-
jugation, tutelage and assimilation by the Spaniards, the
Filipirms'^^ Japanese, and even against uncaring

We should not, therefore, be., surprised if they con-
inue o practice their ancient traditions of tribal
h ^3w, if they persevere in their

right to

kind^^of^hia^rtm ^^hout meaning this to be some
dillpra nponip Bangsa Moro and the Cor-

rifP fhe willpower and determina-

sharp spears in demolishing
any obstacle in their quest for justice, peace and self-
determination. Listen to the fiery words of a Muslim:
If we act in a cmhzed way which is the way of Islam,
they do not listen to us. Pero huramentado o jihad,
iyon ang pakikinggan nila.”

Honorable Commissioners, we wish to impress upon
you the gravity of the decision to be made by every
single one of us in this Commission. We have the over-
whelming support of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
people to grant them regional autonomy in the new
Constitution. By this we mean meaningful and autlientic
regional autonomy. We propose that we have a separate
Article on the autonomous regions for the Bangsa Moro
and Cordillera people clearly spelled out in this Consti-
tution, instead of prolonging the agony of their vigil and
their struggle. This, too, is a plea for national peace. Let
us not pass the buck to the Congress to decide on this.
Let us not wash our hands of our responsibility to attain
national unity and peace and to settle this problem and
rectify past injustices, once and for all.

For once, let us think of our indigenous communities
even as we think of the whole nation. For once, let us
help pave the way for a future of prosperity based on
the equality of all people. For once, let us courageously
decide on issues based on their internal merits and not
to be clouded in our reasoning by the tyranny of emo-
tionally loaded words, as often indicated by statements
like “The only good Moro is a dead Moro.”

Let me repeat the poignant words of Senator Diokno
who wrote to Marcos years ago, during the height of the
Bontoc-Kalinga struggle against the Chico Dam Project:

Our indigenous communities are part and parcel of us.
They are living links to our yesteryears, perfect exemplars
in fact of the barangay democracy you seek to promote.

In their culture they may well be a lamp on our past, to our
tomorrow. To destroy them is to destroy a vital part of our
past, our present and our future. Their death as a people,
and we do not hesitate to call it “genocide,” will be ours,
too, as a nation. Whether justice or injustice, peace or
violence, life or death shall prevail, is entirely in your
hands.

Finally, let me echo the wise words of the Muslirns
whom we met during the public hearings: “You in this
Commission have a rare opportunity to write a docu-
ment of peace and justice.”

Let us not miss that opportunity.

Marami pong salamat.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Commissioner Bennagen.
The last but not the least speaker is the Honorable Bias
F. Ople.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Ople is recognized.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF COMMISSIONER OPLE

MR. OPLE. Thank you, Madam President.

I think the Commission is dealing with two reports
from the Committee on Local Governments. Committee
Report No. 2 1 deals with local autonomy for the
government as a whole, particularly the local units,
which I think is very important. It is said that this is a
colonial legacy, the overcentralized system of govern-

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

173

ment that denies the role of initiative at the local levels.
It is, of course, understandable that a colonial power
would first of all annihilate the autonomy of local units
in order to ensure a foolproof security against potential
rebellions or disturbances. But at the same time Com-
mittee Report No. 25 deals with a more specialized kind
of autonomy, that is to say, autonomous regions, on the
premise that certain regions with unique cultural, his-
toric, social and even religious bonds where they have
been placed in a position of inferiority relative to the
dominant groups in society have the right to demand
autonomy, a measure of self-determination within the
larger political framework of the nation-state. I am
addressing my remarks in the next two or three minutes
precisely to the purposes of Committee Report No. 25.
Within this draft Article, therefore, there is a major
provision for the creation of autonomous regions. It is
an authority for Congress to provide by law for such
regions of autonomy as may be determined to be
necessary.

Throughout modern history, Madam President, auto-
nomy for certain regions within the framework of the
nation-state has meant a constructive alternative to
secessionist aspirations. May I quote briefly from the
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences the following
words, and I quote:

Autonomy on a territorial basis would easily conflict
with the State but the two are not irreconcilable. If a State
fails to induce interest in the continued maintenance of the
State union on the part of frontier outlying or racially alien
regions, it incurs the danger of their being annexed or of
their gaining independence. As a remedy, the State may
grant to such regions a certain measure of self-government
within the larger political framework.

The Muslim-Filipinos in Mindanao have fought for
hundreds of years to preserve their independence and
their identity from the colonial power. More recently,
they precipitated a civil war in Mindanao which has
already caused an estimated 100,000 lives, including the
lives of noncombatant women and children. The hostili-
ties fortunately were suspended in 1976 as a result of
the Tripoli Ceasefire Agreement. But this dormant war
may act up all over again with all its renewed fury if no
understanding is reached between the Moro National
Liberation Front and the Aquino government. I under-
stand that by next month the negotiations will resume
in Jeddah where also the organization of the Islamic
Confermice will be meeting. And that is the whole
point. This agreement for peace between Filipinos has
been mediated by a 42-nation international organization
of the Islamic Conference as though our Muslim
brothers have to look beyond our own shores and
beyond the capabilities of our own government, across
the seas, for justice in the association of their fellow
legionists called the Islamic Conference of 42 states.

In the Cordillera region, we all know that there is
still an ongoing armed rebellion as well as continuous
militant but peaceful agitation for autonomy.

The Constitutional Commission is, therefore,
presented with one of those rare opportunities, perhaps
unrepeatable, to seal the permanent unity of these two
regions with the rest of us, with the rest of the republic
by granting them autonomous status as proposed in this
draft Article within the larger sovereignty of the Repub-
lic of the Philippines. The draft Article prepared by
the Committee on Local Governments under the dis-
tinguished chairmanship of Commissioner Nolledo
defines the criteria for autonomous regions and their
spheres of jurisdiction. It reserves very clearly certain
powers that only the national government may exercise
including those dealing with foreign affairs, national
defense, post, telegraph and communication and even
the guidelines of economic policy, and where there is a
security force, the supervision of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, and the control of the President of the
Philippines.

It calls on Congress to enact the organic acts for two
regions - Mindanao and the Cordillera - within one
year from the election of its members. So, this is an
assignment with a deadline to insure that there will be
results. The approval of this provision will immediately
raise the hopes, morale and faith in the nation of the
millions of our brother Filipinos involved in these
regions and will be a major contribution to peace in our
land, in our time.

Thank you. Madam President.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Commissioner Ople.

Madam President, we are now ready to entertain
questions from the honorable Members of the Com-
mission.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com-
missioner Trenas be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Trenas is recog-
nized.

MR. TRENAS. Madam President, may 1 ask the
Committee or its Chairman a few questions for clarifica-
tion?

MR. NOLLEDO. Gladly.

MR. TREl^AS. I am referring to Committee Report
No. 21. Section 1 made reference to the different
political subdivisions and among them, the barrios. I
notice that in the 1973 Constitution, the barrio was also
referred to as the smallest political subdivision.

In the rneantime, we have the barangay as the
smallest political subdivision. May I ask the Committee
if this provision of the 1973 Constitution referring to
the barrios has been amended and instead the barangay
was used?

MR. NOLLEDO. The Committee has decided to
revert to the original name of barrio instead of barangay.

174

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

Mr. Marcos issued some decrees changing the barrio
to barangay and those decrees should be declared
unconstitutional because there was no corresponding
amendment in the 1973 Constitution. The 1973 Consti-
tution uses up to now, as also embodied in the Freedom
Constitution, the word “barrio.” Besides, we received a
lot of communications from all over the country asking
us to revert to the name “barrio” because most of the
ancient and even legal documents including titles still
use the word “barrio.” The term “barrio schools” is
still found in the different parts of the country. I
think another reason is that the barangay is indicative
of the dictatorial regime of Mr. Marcos. It is also the
unanimous sense of the members of the League of
Governors and City Mayors that we revert to the term
“barrio.”

MR. TRE5JAS. So, from the time of the adoption of
the present Constitution we are drafting, we shall refer
to barrios.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President.

MR. TRENAS. Insofar as Section 3 of the Article on
Local Governments is concerned, in case of province or
city or municipality is divided or merged, the approval
of the majority of the votes in a plebiscite called for the
^rpose in the unit or units directly affected is needed,
j recent case of Negros del Norte which was
ivi e rom Negros Occidental. The plebiscite referred
iirhabitants of the proposed municipality
an t e Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
1 ne Committee adheres to the ruling of the Supreme
inhabitants to be consulted should not
on y e the inhabitants of the new province or city or
town but the whole province. Am I right?

^ ^Sree with the Gentleman fully,
mink the Committee will fully agree because of th
words directly affected.” Those people are als
directly affected by division.

MR. TRENAS. Just one more question. Section 6 of

e same Article made reference to the right of local

governments to create their own sources of revenue

an axes. However, Section 7 also gave the same right

o oca governments to levy and collect charges of con-

tv! unique, distinct and exclusive to them. Will

wti o explain the difference between

Section 6 and Section 7?

a direr! rr. f with respect to Section 6, this

eovernment i!* Constitution on each local

of revenue and^ Power to impose its own sources

mav he fiv H K t^xes Subject to such guidelines

•n read nf iis’^ c!!- Gentleman will notice that

instead of using limitations as may be fixed by law,”

we used guidelmes as recommended by the League of

Governors and City Mayors. So, there is a need for an

authority like this constitutional authority for each

local government unit to impose such taxes, fees and

charges. With respect to Section 7 this section recog-
nizes some customary rules authorizing the levy of
unique, distinct and exclusive taxes in accordance with
the customs of each particular place. There is no need of
any law, constitutional or statutory, for local govern-
ment units to impose these taxes. In other words, we
recognize the existence of customs and, in effect, we
give validity to such customs.

MR. TREfsJAS. Precisely, I notice the significance of
the fact that while in Section 6 the Committee placed
“subject to such guidelines as may be fixed by law,” the
same is not found in Section 7.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because there is an intent on
the part of the Constitutional Commission, it seems to
me, to preserve the customs and traditions of members
of the indigenous communities. And this is one way ot
preserving their customs and traditions. When these
levies are imposed by customs, I think we assume that
the members of the indigenous communities consider
them reasonable enough and they are willing and able
to pay them.

MR. TREnAS. Therefore, 1 am to understand that
Congress cannot, insofar as Section 7 is concerned, pass
a law subjecting the levy and charges mentioned therein
to any guideline.

MR. NOLLEDO. We do not necessarily preclude that
possibility. Congress may, after all, impose such guide-
lines as when the people crave for such guidelines.

MR. TRENAS. However, the effect of Section 7 is
that local governments may spend the levy and charges
for its own use.

MR. NOLLEDO. That is true.

MR. TRENAS. Exclusively?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President.

MR. TRENAS. Finally, I notice in the Article on
Local Governments that highly urbanized cities, which
were mentioned in the 1973 Constitution, are not men-
tioned anymore. The effect of that is, as I recall, highly
urbanized cities were not allowed to vote for provincial
officials. Since we have done away with them, inhabi-
tants of the cities can now vote for provincial officials.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. I think that
was a clear intent on the part of the Committee. The
Gentleman will notice that in Section 4 (1), Article XI
of the 1973 Constitution, this sentence appears;

Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards

established in the local government code, shall be in-
dependent of the province.

We deleted that; we did not place that in our report
because we believe that voters of highly urbanized cities
should be allowed to participate in provincial elections.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

175

MR. TRE5IAS. Thank you very much.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I would like to ask a
few questions of the Committee.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rama may pro-
ceed.

MR. RAMA. One reading Articles XXI and XXV will
learn a lot of things about what are the autonomous
units, who will form the autonomous units, what the
main features of the autonomous units are, who is going
to supervise them, et cetera, but it seems that one would
not learn this basic question. What is the purpose of
these autonomous units? Why are we creating or intro-
ducing them? Why do we need these autonomous units?
Why do we create them? Does the Gentleman not think
that we should have some kind of a statement on the
purpose, considering that this is a new feature in our
Constitution whereby the citizen could understand and
know the justification and the reason for such auto-
nomous units by giving a center to all these Articles like,
for instance, stating that the purpose is to speed up the
economic and social development of the regions and the
people therein? Would the Gentleman consider a state-
ment to that effect later in the period of amendments?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. That ques-
tion of the Gentleman, I think, is very vital because the
members of the Committee are deeply concerned about
the formation of autonomous regions. Based on my
sponsorship speech, I believe that the purely unitary
system has been a failure in the Republic of the Philip-
pines. This country will never progress if we do not
create autonomous regions.

MR. RAMA. Yes, I agree with the Gentleman com-
pletely but I just want that information for the people.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. I would like to furthermore
state, if the Chair does not mind, that even in the
Constitutional Commission, we decided to fragmentize
Q-m*g0jyg§ into forming various committees towards a
common end to draft the Constitution as early as
possible. You will notice that Committees function
effectively, and so we talk of some sort of a division of
labor in the same manner that we talk of division of
power.

For purposes of posterity, we would like to give some
advantages in support of regional autonomous regions.

Rapid growth could be better attained with a more
efficient and effective management of the country. By
limiting matters to be decided by the central govern-
ment to those of national importance, the central
government will not be unduly distracted by localized
problems. Moreover, programs should be designed ac-
cording to regional priorities and potentials rather than
on the national yardstick of least common denominator.
A genuine autonomy is inhospitable to the rise of

another Marcos; it will be more difficult for foreign
powers to influence or dominate the country because
it may happen that foreigners may influence one region
but another region may resist, and it is not easy to con-
trol all these regions. Also, by reason of the archipelagic
geography of our country, central governance is ineffi-
cient and unresponsive. A regionalized structure will
make the government more accessible to the people.
That we are regionalistic as a people is beyond dispute.
The reasons for these are, besides our island geography,
the existing linguistic and ethnic diversities. The State
can achieve equitable distribution of income through
the decentralization of political and economic power. In
addition, the exercise of these powers through local
autonomy is also the key to modernization of our rural
areas. You will notice that the following countries have
autonomous regions: Spain, Italy, Argentina, Switzer-
land, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Austria,
among others. China is also one of them. In fact, in the
Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,

I understand, even the names of the regions are men-
tioned. You will also notice that Switzerland, because it
has different ethnic idiosyncracies — it has 22 cantons
and two are semicantons — despite the fact that its
people have different persuasions, remains united. There
are Etruscans, Cretans, Celts, Romans, and Germans.
They have also a variety of languages. Two-thirds speak
German, one-fifth French, one-tenth Italian, and one
percent Rhaeto-Romanic. Despite the diversity in
religion as well as diversity in customs and traditions,
there is unity in Switzerland.

MR. RAMA. Thank you. Madam President.

I notice that the basis for unifying components to
form into an autonomous unit as stated in Section 9
should be:

. . . common historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic,

ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics within

the framework of and respecting the national sovereignty.

On the other hand, in Section 16, it seems that the only
basis for forming Mindanao and Cordillera into auto-
nomous regions is the ethnic and cultural reason; is that
correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will notice that that
is not the only basis. That provision that he cited - I am
very happy that he cited that provision - opens the
avenue towards full federalization of the Republic of
the Philippines. That is why we enumerated several
factors to be considered. The Gentleman can add other
factors if he wishes but ethnic consideration is not the
only 'factor to be considered in the grant of autonomy
to Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras

MR. I pant that ethnic consideration should

be considered with respect to these unique regions. But
does not the Gentleman think that we should be a little
flexible in the sense that when we try to unite certain

176

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

areas, we also take into consideration the economic Sections 1 to 8 general principles which would be
basis? applicable also to autonomous regions?

MR. NOLLEDO. We really consider the economic
factor as material in the formation of an autonomous
region.

MR. RAMA. For instance, there is a site where a dam
can be constructed that will benefit a lot of areas
around it. Instead of just looking into the ethnic or
cultural components of that area, would we not consider
from the economic pcjint of view that the whole area
would be served by that dam and, therefore, would
boost the economy of that region?

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman is perfectly correct,
Madam President. In fact, the word “communal” can
be a basis to form an autonomous region. For example,
we can have Bicolandia as another autonomous region.

^ creating an autonomous region
for Mindanao, the Gentleman would consider going
beyond areas where the Muslims do not reside if it
would be for the benefit of that area as a region or as
an autonomous unit?

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, they are interre-
lated with each other because even in Committee
Report No. 21, we mentioned the term “autonomous
regions.” Based on basic rules of statutory construction.
Committee Report No. 21 may be qualified by the
pertinent provisions of Committee Report No. 25 in
appropriate cases.

MR. ROMULO. Thank you.

Going to Section 3, my understanding of Section 3 is
as follows: That an autonomous region or a province for
that matter cannot be created without first having a
plebiscite among the inhabitants affected. Is that
correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. I agree with the Gentleman, Madam
President.

MR. ROMULO. A plebiscite is a precondition to the
creation of an autonomous region or a province or a
subdivision of an existing unit; is that correct?

Pre^denf^Th^f^r ' ^ possibility. Madam

Q Gentleman will also notice that in

wantpH t ’ added “or other characteristics.” We
f wider leeway to the Congress in the

he uratit ri Whether the regional autonomy should
be granted to a particular region.

By the same token, for instance, there is
anH a ^ proviucc that produces certain products
hpraiicp^f P*‘°'^bice that consumes that product
not hp hn produce that product. Could they

that econnn?- ^ ^°§®ther in one region on the basis of

that economic consideration?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is also a possibility.

MR. RAMA. I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you.

be reco^^fd"^' Commissioner Romulo

THE PRESIDENT • •
j^j 2 ed. ‘ '“^^rnissioner Romulo is recog-

MR. ROMULO. Just a few

ident.

questions. Madam* Pres-

tee^Lp^rt^No'^?" tt Smitt^^

Sections 1 to 8 general proS^^^^^

Uons 1 to 8 general

unit versus the sections contained in Committ
No. 25 which refer only to autonomous regio

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President, that is why
we did not provide for that anymore in Committee
Report No. 25.

MR. ROMULO. So, how does the Gentleman recon-
cile the need for a plebiscite prior to the creation of an
autonomous region with Section 16 which already
mandates, upon the acceptance of this Constitution, the
Congress to pass an organic act for the autonomous
regions of Mindanao and Cordillera?

MR. NOLLEDO. The conflict is more apparent than
real because the moment an organic act is granted by
the Congress, it is understood that the organic act rnust
find acceptance among a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite called for the purpose. If there should be no
such support, then the organic act would be ineffective.

MR. ROMULO. Does the Gentleman not think he is
putting the cart before the horse? Why should Congress
not first determine whether the people or the inha-
bitants affected desire an autonomous region before
Congress enacts a law to that effect?

MR. NOLLEDO. Even adopting that opinion, I think
there would be no inconsistency. Congress may do that,
if Congress should decide to do it.

MR. ROMULO. But there is, because Congress is left
no choice. Under Section 16, it is not only mandated to
create the organic act; it is given a timetable. It is given
no leeway whatsoever and it does not say that this
organic act should be presented to the people in a
plebiscite.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

177

On the contrary, under Section 10, the legislature
consults only the elective officials of the provinces and
the cities. So, to me, the construction is clear that prior
to a plebiscite. Congress must create these autonomous
regions and they may or may not submit it to a plebi-
scite because the Gentleman seems to be carving an
exception to Section 3 right in this Constitution.

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so. Section 3,
because it mentions no autonomous region, should like-
wise apply to an autonomous region. If the Gentleman
thinks it is necessary to make the provision clearer, then
we will entertain the corresponding amendments.

MR. ROMULO. That is right.

In the Gentleman’s' answer to Commissioner Trenas
with regard to Sections 6 and 7, he seems to imply that
in Section 7, the legislature may nevertheless intervene.
However, by the wording of the Gentleman, he is
subjecting to legislative authority only the taxes created
under Section 6.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, if the Gentleman does not
mind it, the implication that he is talking about was
qualified later on. I said there is possibility that
Congress may, after all, set forth certain guidelines to be
followed with respect to Section 7, if the circumstances
should warrant because the wordings in Section 7 do
not indicate subject to such guidelines as are expressly
indicated in Section 6.

MR. ROMULO. Therefore, statutory construction
may dictate later that the authority of Congress is
limited only to Section 6; so I think we have to clarify
that.

MR. NOLLEDO. As far as I am concerned, there is no
need to clarify the same because I feel that the intent is
to respect the customs and traditions of the indigenous
communities.

MR. ROMULO. But this talks about contributions
unique, distinct and exclusive to them; meaning, that
these are a unique type of taxes. This is a different type
of tax which, I take it, is already accepted in the indi-
genous communities. So, if the wordings do not make it
clear that Congress may enact laws with regard to these
unique, distinct and exclusive charges, one may be
depriving Congress of that right. My other question
precisely is: What are these unique, distinct and
exclusive levies?

MR. NOLLEDO. That may create some judicial
questions or cases which our courts may decide ac-
cordingly.

MR. ROMULO. That is not so if I read the rest of this
provision. Such things will be decided by the judicial
system which will be created within each region.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that judicial system itself will
come into operation when questions of this nature as
may be arising from Section 7 may be presented to the
courts.

MR. ROMULO. So, the national government,
whether it is the legislature or the executive, will be
completely left out of this question. My point is that I
do not know what is referred to. What kind of taxes are
these? Will the Gentleman give me an example?

MR. NOLLEDO. We discussed this in the Committee
and Commissioner Alonto made some examples because
there are areas where some contributions are traditional.
For example, they may arise from relationship of mar-
riage or relationship between parents and children even
if they are already emancipated. We did not give specific
examples, but customs and traditions can be proved
according to the Civil Code by the generally accepted
rules of evidence. When someone questions the validity
of the imposition, tlien, as I said, a judicial question
may crop up. But in the meantime, these are voluntary
acts on the part of the members of the indigenous com-
munities and we do not expect cases to arise therefrom.

MR. ROMULO. In Section 8, local taxes referred to
relate, I would take it, to what is provided in Section 6.

MR. NOLLEDO. I beg the Gentleman’s pardon.

MR. ROMULO. Local taxes referred to in Section 8,

I would assume, are those taxes which are allowed under
Section 6. Is that correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes.

MR. ROMULO. Therefore, they have been previously
subjected to guidelines from the legislature,

MR. NOLLEDO. Should the legislature decide to do
so.

MR. ROMULO. On the other hand, it would not refer
merely to local taxes which are collected locally such as
real estate tax.

MR. NOLLEDO. It depends on the provisions of the
law involved because in the case of real estate taxes,
local government units are entitled to a share. That may
possibly fall under the last sentence.

MR. ROMULO. Yes, as provided by law, under
present law. However, when we talk of a share in the
proceeds of exploitation and development of the
national wealth within their respective areas

MR. NOLLEDO. That was adopted from the Ople
resolution. I would prefer that Commissioner Ople
answer that question.

178

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

MR. ROMULO. Yes, then let me pose my question.
That is neither referred to in Section 6 nor in the first
part of Section 8; therefore, how is this to be decided
or implemented and by whom? Is this now going to be
decided exclusively by the legislature of the auto-
nomous region?

MR. ROMULO. Yes, thank you. I am not really
arguing the share. All I wanted to know is who will
decide and the Gentleman seems to say that it is
Congress.

MR. OPLE. Congress will decide.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, the issue has to do
with Section 8 on page 2 of Committee Report No. 2 1 :

Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local governments
and they shall likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds
of the exploitation and development of the national wealth
within their respective areas.

Just to cite specific examples, in the case of timber-
land within the area of jurisdiction of the Province of
Quirino or the Province of Aurora, we feel that the local
governments ought to share in whatever revenues are
generated from this particular natural resource which is
dso considered a national resource in a proportion to be
determined by Congress. This may mean sharing not
with the local government but with the local popula-
hon. The geothermal plant in the Macban, Makiling-
Banahaw area in Laguna, the Tiwi Geothermal Plant in
Albay, there is a sense in which the people in these
areas, hosting the physical facility based on the re-
sources ound under the ground in their area which are
considered national wealth, should participate in terms
re^onable rebates on the cost of power that they
^y. his is true of the Maria Cristina area in Central
Mindanao, for example. May I point out that in the
revious government, this has always been a very
• ^ subject of Cabinet debates. Are the people

n the locality, where God chose to locate His bounty,

, reasonable modest sharing of this

with the national government? Why should the national
government claim all the revenues arising from them?
tvTf '^sual reply of the technocrats at that time is
a ere must be uniform treatment of all citizens
regar ess of where God’s gifts are located, whether
e ow the ground or above the ground. This, of course,
as led to popular disenchantment. In Albay, for
example, the government then promised a 20-percent
rebate m power because of the contributions of the
iwi plant to the Luzon grid. Although this was
ordered, I remember that the Ministry of Finance, toge-
t er with the National Power Corporation, refused to
There is a bigger economic principle be-
hind this the pnnciple of equity. If God chose to locate

sources of hydroelectric power in

Cordillera,

fuel adiuQtmpnt t ° national government impose

rative advatitage ^ven“Io°the''

through these resources" So It"” “ ^ 'ocalUKS
8 .U , in that sense that

under Section 8. the local populations, if not the local

governments should have a share of whatever national
proceeds may be realized from this natural wealth of the
nation located withm their jurisdictions.

MR. ROMULO. That is my whole point, not the local
legislative assembly but the national Congress.

MR. OPLE. Yes, this will require a national policy
that only Congress can establish.

MR. ROMULO. As to Section 9, in view of the Chair-
man’s answers to Commissioner Rama, I would assume
that not only are the seeds of federalism implanted in
Section 9 but other regions are actually encouraged to
become autonomous; is that correct? Is that the sense of
the Committee?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. That is why
we mentioned here specifically Muslim Mindanao and
the Cordilleras because we feel that these will serve as
models should Congress decide to fully federalize the
Republic of the Philippines. I believe that we must do
so, if we are to go far and if we are to progress.

MR. ROMULO. So, Section 9 really authorizes
Congress to federate the Philippines if it so wishes?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, we give discretion to the
Congress.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I have a slight disagree-
ment with the Chairman of the Committee. I would like
to accept this as a statement of aspiration, but I do not
think the committee report is sending a definitive signal
to the future that we ought to federalize. If that is the
extent of our aspiration, in the proper course, I would
invite the Chairman to develop a more explicit provi-
sion. That, however, will take us to another domain of
public policy which may result in an overhaul of this
Constitution and I just wanted to call attention to that.

MR. ROMULO. Yes, in my opinion, that is a very
serious question and it would involve momentous
decisions. If that is what we are being called upon to
decide by Section 9, I think it better be made clear to
all of us. We are, in fact, implanting through Section 9
the possibility of federating this country.

MR. OPLE. I do not know if the Chairman agrees.

MR. NOLLEDO. If that is the intent of the Commit-
tee or perhaps the possible intent of the Commission, I
do not think it is expressly necessary to say so. We are
only opening the avenue to the possibility because. . .

MR. OPLE. I think what we want to establish is a
kind of maximum decentralization, short of federaliza-
tion, at this moment in history.

MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986

179

MR. ROMULO. Thdt sounds like someone being half
pregnant.

MR. OPLE. No, that is what local autonomy ought to
mean.

MR. ROMULO. That is what I am trying to say. Is
the Gentleman talking of local autonomy or is he
talking of federalism?

MR. OPLE. Local autonomy, Madam President.

MR. ROMULO. Thank you.

Section 12 enumerates a great many powers which
will be granted to the autonomous region and these are:
powers of taxation, development, health, school, pro-
tection of the environment, et cetera. All these require
financial and economic resources. Has the Committee in
its study determined whether these regions are econo-
mically viable by themselves?

MR. NOLLEDO. In that case, we are leaving it to
Congress to determine whether or not it is viable to
create autonomous regions out of the particular
provinces and cities applying for regional autonomy.

MR. ROMULO. And I take it, because of the man-
date, whether viable or not, one will expect the rest of
the country to contribute to the viability of these
autonomous regions through their taxes. Is that correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily, because whether it
is viable or not, I think that is a relative question.
Congress may provide the necessary incentives or the
necessary support when it complies with the mandate
set forth in this Constitution.

Commissioner Bennagen would like to talk on this.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. ROMULO. Let me ask then the other question:
Therefore, is Congress free to determine whether the
applicant for regional autonomy is viable economically,
and if it is not, then Congress may refuse to grant
autonomy? Is that the application?

MR. NOLLEDO. Congress may delay the grant.

MR. ROMULO. Delay?

MR. NOLLEDO. It may delay, in the meantime, and
it may not grant immediately until viability is proven.

MR. OPLE. Madam President, in connection with
that, right now the existing law on local governments
provides that one of the standards to be met for creating
a new local government unit such as a municipality or a
province is the economic viability which is often quanti-
fiable and is so quantified.

MR. ROMULO. Exactly.

MR. OPLE. And, therefore, in enacting the organic
act, as mandated here for an autonomous region, the
capacity for self-reliance, including financial self-
reliance, will be one of the standards that will pre-
sumably be laid down by Congress on the basis of
existing law.

MR. ROMULO. Although it is conspicuously absent
in Section 9.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. For the information of
Commissioner Romulo, at least, in the case of both the
Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, we have statistics to
show their economic viability based on the investigation
of existing natural resources in the area as well as the
human resources.

MR. ROMULO. And thus, they do not need the
support of the national government?

MR. BENNAGEN. That has to be taken care of again
in relation to other existing provisions as already
pointed out by Commissioners Ople and Nolledo. We do
not see here a complete separation from the central
government, but rather an efficient working relationship
between the autonomous region and the central govern-
ment. We see this as an effective partnership, not a
separation.

MR. ROMULO. Therefore, complete autonomy is not
really thought of as complete independence.

MR. OPLE. We define it as a measure of self-
government within the larger political framework of the
nation.

MR. ROMULO. Yes. And, therefore, relations of
dependency when it comes to economic and financial
matters may be taken into account.

MR. OPLE. To the extent of its political subordina-
tion to the larger sovereignty and especially keeping in
mind the very depressed conditions of these regions, I
would not foreclose the possibility of Congress desiring
to extend national support, especially in the beginning
years, to regions with autonomy.

MR. ALONTO. And besides that. Madam President,
we would like to inform the honorable Commissioner
that even in a real and strictly federal system of govern-

180

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

ment like the United States, economic relation between
the central government and the state has never been
removed.

MR. ROMULO. That is correct.

MR. ALONTO. There is no complete independence
or autonomy, as the honorable Commissioner has
mentioned.

MR. ROMULO. And, therefore, it allows the federal
government to intervene and to regulate the states when
their rights begin to disappear. I just want to make that
point.

Section 12 (5) talks of establishment, maintenance
and administration of schools in the autonomous
region. Basically, I have the same question. I assume
again that the cost of maintenance will be borne by the
autonomous region. If not, and even if these are main-
tained, to what extent may this educational system be
subordinated or coordinated with the policies of the
national government with regard to education?

MR. BENNAGEN. There could be a number of varia
om on this in relation to financial responsibility. Ii
cou end up to a secondary or tertiary level. But we ar(
more concerned with curricular content, with what i:
emg aught, that is, an educational program should bf
responave to the particularities of the region and the
peop e s aspirations. So that in recognition of the cul

chill diversity, the central govemmeni

snau not impose a uniform educational system.

chi^ mechanics, some form of working relation-
on Jtif^ established between the central govemmeni

and the regional governments.

not^^ I ®ut not to the exclusion

national government’s educational poUcies.

MR. BENNAGEN. No, definitely not.

the Madrasah system where Islamic traditions are
taught.

MR. ROMULO. There are other speakers; so,
although I have some more questions, I will reserve my
right to ask them if they are not covered by the other
speakers. I have only two questions.

I heard one of the Commissioners say that local
autonomy already exists in the Muslim region; it is
working very well; it has, in fact, diminished a great deal
of the problems. So, my question is: since that already

exists, why do we have to go into something new?

•

MR. OPLE. May I answer that on behalf of Chairman
Nolledo. Commissioner Yusup Abubakar is right that
certain definite steps have been taken to implement the
provisions of the Tripoli Agreement with respect to an
autonomous region in Mindanao. This is a good first
step, but there is no question that this is merely a partial
response to the Tripoli Agreement itself and to the
fuller standard of regional autonomy contemplated in
that agreement, and now by state policy.

For example, most of the functions listed here are
not yet being exercised by the regional autonomous
government in Mindanao, and that is the reason for the
continuing negotiation between the Philippine govern-
ment and the Moro National Liberation Front and its
allied organizations in order to insure that the stand-
ards of autonomy and its effectiveness will rise to that
level contemplated in the Tripoli Agreement.

MR. ROMULO. For my final question. Madam
President, because I think it is a serious one and I do not
wish to have it misunderstood. It seems to have been
implied that the choice of the Commission is either to
accept these provisions and have peace or we reject
these provisions and have war. Is that really the dilemma
of the Committee in presenting this to us?

MR. ROMULO. Because I suppose that while we
want to preserve indigenous culture, et cetera, there is
another value that we wish to promote, and that is
national umty.

MR. BENNAGEN. That is right.

•A ^^^ULO. And integration to some extent and
identity.

nrinciDlev Vh'.r*'"- i" •l'« ^tateme

pnnaples, that we recognize diversity within the fi
work of national unity. This holds tiie in many sp

1 educatior

also of health and even of infrastructure.

MR. OPLE In the case of Muslim Mindanao, Mi
President, schools here can refer more specifical

MR. OPLE. It is not the Committee but it is history
that presents this choice to our people. I do not think
it can be denied that more than 100,000 lives have
already been lost. There would have been many more
thousands of lives lost, if there was no ceasefire in 1976
and 1977. That Agreement, of course, has suspended
hostilities for a time.

But I think we have heard from our colleagues from
Mindanao about the new gravity of the situation there.
This explains the urgency with which a local ceasefire in
Sulu was concluded the other day, and the general
sense of relief that greeted it on the part of the national
government. But that is merely a partial settlement. The
bigger settlement will be negotiated next month in
Jeddah, when the President of the Philippines sends a
delegation to negotiate with the MNLF within the
purview of the next meeting of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference.

MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986

181

So, in a sense, we are still threatened with war.
Madam President.

MR. ROMULO. Yes. So, it is the Commissioner’s
position that we really have no choice with regard to
this provision.

MR. OPLE. We do not want to appear as though this
Committee is intimidating anyone about his choice.
But what we are saying is that indeed a stark choice. . .

MR. ROMULO. That is the logical conclusion of the
statement that I have heard.

MR. OPLE. Yes.

MR. ROMULO. That if local autonomy will not be
agreed upon as stipulated in this committee report, our
choice will be war. If that is so, the Committee is, there-
fore, not giving anybody a choice.

MR. OPLE. We are not adducing our opinion, but the
facts bring themselves forward in terms of this new
situation.

MR. ROMULO. Yes.

MR. OPLE. There are threats from the Moro National
Liberation Front which cannot be lightly dismissed.
They are prepared to resume full hostilities, and on the
part of our government, it is becoming a fraternal
response.

MR. ROMULO. In the end, the bottom line, which I
think I am hearing from the Committee individually
or collectively, is that we have a very small thin choice
with regard to autonomy as expressed here or we will
have war.

MR. OPLE. I am afraid the Gentleman has described
the stark truth of the situation.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. I would like to supplement the
statement already made by Commissioner Ople. The
choice is not something that we, in our own subjective
wishes, would like to present in the provisions; it is a
choice that is presented to us by the dynamics of social
change and the dynamics of history which tell us at this
particular point in time that such a decision has to be
made. And we only wish that it could be made within
the framework of national unity and democratic pro-
cesses because there are other options that are open to
the people beyond which we will have no domain.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, Commissioner Bemas
wishes to be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bernas is recog-
nized.

FR. BERNAS. Madam President, the questions I have
are fundamentally follow-up questions on some of the
questions raised by Commissioners Trenas and Romulo.

I would like to begin from the recently decided case
of Negros del Norte. The Gentleman said that the
principles enunciated in that Negros decision are still
applicable under this provision.

MR. OPLE. Yes.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, Madam President.

'^R. BERNAS. However, I notice that the word
“directly” was added in this committee report whereas
under the 1973 Constitution, it said: “In a plebiscite
called for the purpose in the unit or units affected.”
Does the word “directly” add anything or modify the
principles in the Negros decision?

MR. NOLLEDO. To my mind, the word “directly”
does not change the substance of the ruling.

FR. BERNAS. So, it was not the intention of the
Committee to change the substance of the ruling.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President.

FR. BERNAS. To go into greater detail, for pur-
poses, for instance, of the creation of a barrio or the
abolition of a barrio, would we need a plebiscite of the
entire municipality?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because the barrio will be
taken out of the municipality.

FR. BERNAS. Yes. And for the purpose of the
creation of a city or a municipality within a province,
would we have a plebiscite in the province?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is the implication.

FR. BERNAS. And if it is a question of the creation
of a province, it would involve a plebiscite within the
province or provinces from which that is being cut off?

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman must be implying an
existence of a regional government.

FR. BERNAS. Or if it is part of a region, then the
plebiscite would involve the entire region.

MR. NOLLEDO. I think so.

182

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

FR. BERNAS. But if it comes to the creation of an
autonomous region, how widespread will the plebiscite
be? Would it be national?

the legislature nor the elected local officials but a more
representative cross-section of the population should be
involved.

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a very good question. In that
case, it should only be the people within the units that
will form the region itself. That is my opinion.

FR. BERNAS. But that departs from the principle of f
the Negros case because in the Negros case, it is not just
the people that were included in the new territory but
the people from which the territory is being carved out,
as it were. If we are creating an autonomous region
within the nation, in effect, we reaUy are carving out a
territory from the entire nation, so it would seem that
logically the entire nation should be involved in a
plebiscite.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President, that is the
consequence, but it would be unwieldy if we will ask
the entire country to participate. We are not taking out
the region from the country; we are forming an auto-
nomous independent region. And I think the people
who are directly affected are those actually residing
within that region.

FR. BERNAS. Yes, that is the reason I am bringing
this up. This thing involves some rather far-reaching
consequences also in relation to the issue raised by
Commissioner Romulo with respect to federalism. Are
we, in effect, creating new categories of laws? Generally,
we have statutes and constitutional provisions. Is this
organic act something in between the two or is it some-
thing equivalent to a constitutional provision? If it is
going to be equivalent to a constitutional provision, it
would seem to me that the formulation of the provisions
of the organic act will have to be done by the legisla-
ture, acting as a constituent assembly, and, therefore,
subject to the provisions of the Article on Amend-
ments. That is the point that I am tr>'ing to bring up. In
effect, if we opt for federalism, it would really involve
an act of the National Assembly or Congress acting
as a constituent assembly and present amendments
to this Constitution, and the end product itself would
be a constitutional provision which would only be
amendable according to the processes indicated in the
Constitution.

■ ERNAS. But the rest of the nation is alsi

a ec e m the same way that when we create a provinc

ou 0 M existing province, it is the entire province tha

frrftn portion that is being cut of
irom that province.

We can remedy that by an amend-
t n It seems that there is a direct contradiction.

FR. BERNAS. The reason I am asking this is not to
ave a quarrel with the Committee or anybody but just
or the sake of clarity. Is the Committee talking about
the creation of an organic act?

MR. NOLLEDO. We are talking about the passing of
an organic act.

R. BERNAS. Correct. When the legislature creates
IS organic act, will it be acting as a constituent as-
sembly or as a legislative body?

• NOLLEDO. In relation to that, there is a pr
se amendment that the Committee will present :
ue ime. o, if the Commissioner will not mind, I w:
reserve my answer to that question.

FR. BERNAS. Can the
answer?

sponsor give us a hint as to his

MR. BENNAGEN. Since the question of autonomy is
a matter of exchanging importance to the occupants of
the autonomous region, we would suggest that all
sectors of that autonomous region be involved, not only

MR. OPLE. Madam President, may I express my
personal opinion in this respect.

I think to require Congress to act as a constituent
body before enacting an organic act would be to raise an
autonomous region to the same level as the sovereign
people of the whole country. And I think the powers of
Congress should be quite sufficient in enacting a law,
even if it is now exalted to the level of an organic act
for the purpose of providing a basic law for an auto-
nomous region without having to transform itself into a
constituent assembly. We are dealing still with one
subordinate subdivision of the State even if it is now
. vested with certain autonomous powers on which its
own legislature can pass laws.

FR. BERNAS. So, the questions I have raised so far
with respect to this organic act are; What segment of
the population will participate in the plebiscite? In what
capacity would the legislature be acting when it passes
this? Will it be as a constituent assembly or merely a
legislative body? What is the nature, therefore, of this
organic act in relation to ordinary statutes and the
Constitution? Finally, if we are going to amend this
organic act, what process will be followed?

MR. NOLLEDO. May I answer that, please, in the
light of what is now appearing in our report.

First, only the people who are residing in the units
y' composing the region should be allowed to participate
in the plebiscite. Second, the organic act has the charac-
ter of a charter passed by Congress, not as a constituent
assembly, but as an ordinary legislature and, therefore,
the organic act will still be subject to amendments in the

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

183

ordinary legislative process as now constituted, unless
the Gentleman has another purpose.

FR. BERNAS. But with plebiscite again.

MR. NOLLEDO. Those who will participate in the
plebiscite are those who are directly affected, the in-
habitants of the units constitutive of the region.

FR. BERNAS. So, what I gather from that is that as
far as the creation of the autonomous region is con-
cerned, the Committee is really departing from the
principle established in the Negros del Norte case.

citizens of the Philippines, they continue to be treated as
second class citizens.

In spite of the Bangsa Moro’s history of struggle against
exploitation by the Christian majority, they still have con-
fidence in the new government under President Aquino, in
whom they repose their high hopes for justice and recogni-
tion of their legitimate status and rights. This positive out-
look springs from the knowledge that even the late Ninoy
Aquino had openly stood in support of the Bangsa Moro
autonomy. It is their hope that President Corazon Aquino
shall also stand by her late husband’s conviction and
commitment to the cause of the Bangsa Moro.

Thank you.

MR. OPLE. To that extent.

MR. NOLLEDO. Truly to that extent.

MR. RAMA. I ask. Madam President, that Com-
missioner de los Reyes be recognized.

FR. BERNAS. Thank you, Madam President.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you. Madam PresideijL-'^

MR. RAMA. Madam President, may I ask that Com-
missioner Uka be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recognized.

MR. UKA. Madam President and members of the
Committee, permit me to read a portion of a paper sent
to me on the subject of the Bangsa Moro autonomy, and
I quote:

Autonomy is an expression of the Bangsa Moro’s convic-
tion of its being a viable alternative to separation, and
reposes their hope in the new Charter now being drafted as
one which shall grant recognition to their historical status,
inherent rights, and aspirations.

The fundamental premises urging a constitutional grant
of autonomy to the Bangsa Moro are; The Bangsa Moro is a
historically and culturally distinct and separate nation from
the Christian majority and deserves this status under the uni-
versal principle of self-determination; and Islam is the
religion and way of life of the Bangsa Moro which requires
a separate political and administrative framework from the
Western concept and principle of separation of church and
state. The latter is similarly important because the Bangsa
Moro embraces Islam as the central theme, not only of his
religious practices, but all other aspects of life including the
government and the economy. Hence, a political fusion
with the Christian majority is workable only under a frame-
work of political autonomy which shall allow tlie full
flowering of the genius of the Bangsa Moro in the context
of his Islamic culture.

Why does the Bangsa Moro insist on autonomy? Because
it is theirs by legal and historical right. Before the coming
of the Spaniards in 1521, they were already a sovereign and
independent nation. However, they were forced into joining
the Philippine Republic after they were promised justice,
equality and fairness. But after more than 51 years as

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, I would
like to differ from Commissioner Bemas’ view that
there is a deviation from the doctrine in the Negros
del Norte case when it comes to the creation of an
autonomy. I think there is no deviation because we
are only creating another form of local government
and there is no portion of the territory of the nation
that is being divided or separated. Therefore, only the
people affected will vote. While in the Negros del
Norte case, a new province is being carved out of an
existing province, which means a diminution of that
existing province and for which reason the whole
province will vote.

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to support that theory,
but it seems that the difference is very minimal. And I
think Commissioner Bemas has a point there. However,
as fsr as I am concerned, I would like to support the
Gentleman s theory because it really supports our
report.

MR. DE LOS REYES. In answer to the questions
of Commissioner Trenas where he stated that the old
provision in the 1973 Constitution, which makes
highly urbanized cities independent of the province
is already being repealed because it is his intention
again to make highly urbanized cities part of the
province.

highly urbanized cities are citip? • •

1 +;^., wies with a minimun

population of 150,000, as certified by the Nationa

Census and Statistics Office and with the latest annua

income of at least P30 milhon f u

. f T'- uiiiiion, as certified by th(

Minister of Finance; whereas the other city is knoln a
he coniponent city which does not have that qualifica

nnn has a population of less thai

50,000 and Its annual earning is less than P30 million.

Gentleman to know that these highl)
urbanized cities are better off as independent citie;

184

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

rather than being made part of the province. They are
independent; they earn a lot; they even earn more than
the province; and, moreover, they do not contribute
anything to the province. For this reason, would the
Gentleman like to reassess or rethink his stand on the
matter? I think the present setup where highly urban-
ized cities are separate from the province should be
maintained.

MR. NOLLEDO. I think the question of Com-
missioner Trenas is predicated on the principle of
whether or not the population of the highly urbanized
cities can participate in the election of officials of the
province. In all other cases, the provisions cited by the
Gentleman; namely, Section 166 of the Local Govern-
ment Code, which is Batas Pambansa Big. 337, may still
stand. I know as a fact that there is a future amendment
to be presented possibly by Commissioner Napoleon
Rama where inhabitants of highly urbanized cities
should be allowed to vote for elective provincial offi-
cials because there was a claim that this was done by
Mr. Marcos in order that the highly urbanized cities
composed mostly of intellectuals who are fighting him
should not participate in the election of provincial
officials because of the intent to control elective
provincial officials.

MR. DE LOS REYES. So, under the Gentleman’s

eory, we will revert to a situation where the Cities of
rasay and Caloocan and, I think, even Quezon City will

^e o vote for the Governor of Rizal. Is that the
mtention?

NOLLEDO. I think Commissioner Rama would
like to comment on that.

REYES. Commissioner Rama’s situa-
tion IS different because that is Cebu City.

MR. NOLLEDO. No, I would like to give my opinion
after him.

MR. RAMA. I would like to explain why I filed t
resolution. Traditionally, since time immemorial, C(
. voting for its provincial officials. It r

e ditterent here in Manila because for a long time
greater Manila area was not voting for governorship.

JUS w^t to have that practice because there
gerrymandenng in the case of Cebu.

Rama wiS^h^^^ t- answer of Commissic

be^ a Manila area

length of ttae. for a consider;

MR. DE LOS REYES. Madam President, in Section 1 ,
the^ Gentleman stated that the different local units and
political subdivisions are provinces, cities, municipals
ties, barrios and autonomous regions. Does this mean

that Congress cannot create another form of political
subdivision, for example, a metro government, like the
present Metro Manila government? Does the report of
the Gentleman’s Committee mean that we are doing
away with the Metro Manila government and that we are
prohibiting future Congress from creating such a form
of local government unit forever?

MR. NOLLEDO. I would like to answer the last
question because it is more specific. That was the intent
of the Committee. Because of overlapping of functions,
we feel that highly urbanized cities can stand alone
wihout the need of forming a supergovernment, like the
Metro Manila Commission. Besides, we provided in
Section 5 of Committee Report No. 21 that local
government units may group themselves, consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services and resources for pur-
poses commonly beneficial to them. That, to my mind,
is enough basis to form a coordinating agency, for
example, to coordinate the basic services and efforts of
areas that are covered within the metropolitan area of
Manila. In other words, we are doing away with the
metropolitan governments even if the draft of the
University of the Philippines recommended such kind of
government. We did not adopt the provisions on metro-
politan government, and this is in accord with the
suggestion of the League of Governors and City Mayors.

MR. DE LOS REYES. So, upon the approval of ratifi-
cation of this new Constitution, assuming that the
committee report will be adopted, the Metro Manila
Commission and the Metro Manila government shall be
deemed abolished.

MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily because there is a
provision in the Transitory Provisions that existing laws
may still continue until changed or repealed by the
forthcoming Congress.

But to my mind — I am speaking individually, not on
behalf of the Committee — P.D. No. 824 that created
the Metro Manila government was really contrary to the
Constitution, as I stated in my sponsorship speech. But
because the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in the
case of Lopez vs. COMELEC and Lopez vs. Metro
Manila Commission ruled that P.D. No. 824 is constitu-
tional in view of the 1984 Amendment to the Constitu-
tion where the National Capital Region was considered
as a separate region by itself. In fact, I think the
Supreme Court found difficulty in justifying the consti-
tutionality of P.D. No. 824.

In view of that ruling and our belief adhering to the
rule of law that the Supreme Court, whether right or
wrong, is still correct, then P.D. No. 824 still exists until
repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.

Thank you.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I move for a suspen-
sion of the session for a few minutes.

MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986

185

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.

It was 4:16 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:51 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, the next inter-
pellator is Commissioner Rodrigo. May he be recog-
nized?

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recog-
nized.

MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I have a few
questions for clarification. Section 16 provides that the
legislature within a limited period of time shall pass
organic acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao
and Cordillera. My question is: Are these organic acts
uniform for the two regions or may the legislature pass
one organic act for the Cordillera and a different organic
act for Mindanao?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, Section 16 says that
the legislature will pass the organic acts for the auto-
nomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordilleras; by
that, I suppose that there will be separate organic acts.

MR. RODRIGO. Separate?

MR. OPLE. Yes, for the two autonomous regions.

MR. RODRIGO. So, it is possible for the legislature
to give more autonomy to the Cordillera than to Min-
danao and vice-versa.

MR. OPLE. Within the framework of the constitu-
tional provisions. Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. This section mentions autonomous
region of Mindanao. Does that refer to the whole of
Mindanao?

MR. OPLE. It refers to the so-called Muslim Minda-
nao in the context of the' Moro homeland mentioned in
the Tripoli Agreement; but in saying this, I do not want
it understood that we are limiting the power of Congress
to determine the autonomous areas.

MR. RODRIGO. The Tripoli Agreement, if I remem-
ber right, comprises not only Mindanao but Palawan
and Sulu, am I right?

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. The original Moro
homeland consists of 13 provinces which, however, in

the late 1970s had been reduced to about 10 with
Davao, Cotabato and Palawan being taken out of the
original area.

MR. RODRIGO. But under Section 1 6 the legislature
has the power to determine which areas wiU comprise
this region. It might specify only a few provinces in the
Island of Mindanao plus a few cities, is that right?

MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. By these provi-
sions, we do not want to limit the power of Congress
in determining the areas of the autonomous regions.

MR. RODRIGO. After enacting the organic acts for
Mindanao and the Cordillera, the legislature may then
enact other organic acts for different regions in the
Philippines. I heard Commissioner NoUedo mention a
possible autonomous region in Ilocos and Bicol.

My question is: Will the organic act for Ilocos and
Bicol be uniform? Or can they again be different from
each other?

MR. OPLE. Madam President, I may have a slight
disagreement with my colleagues in the Committee
concerning the entitlement of the Ilocos and Bicol
regions to the same terms of regional autonomy which
are proposed to be conferred upon Muslim Mindanao
and the Cordillera on the basis that the Ilocos, the Bicol,
the Tagalog provinces, the Visayan provinces and some
Mindanao provinces constitute the so-called “dominant
groups” in the Philippine social and territorial structure
and, therefore, autonomy given to one region among
these “dominant groups,” the so-called traditional
Christian Filipino groups, should be accessible to every
other such region. The reason why Muslim Mindanao
and the Cordillera are claiming autonomy is that
they have a certain uniqueness and what they con-
sider an inferior relationship with the dominant
groups in society which are the Christian lowland
groups, including the Tagalogs, the Ilocanos, the
Visayans, the Pangasinenses, the Pampanguenos and
those in the Christian provinces in Mindanao. And so,
I think the specific context for the quanta of autonomy
for these dominant groups should be uniform. Commit-
tee Report No. 21 refers principally to the nonautono-
mous regions which constitute the entire infrastructure
of our local governments.

MR. RODRIGO. But may regions populated by
Filipinos whom the Gentleman calls 'dominant groups*’
be also converted into autonomous regions?

MR. OPLE. According to Chairman Nolledo, they
may invoke the rights of autonomy.

MR. RODRIGO. Since Commissioner Nolledo is the
Chairman, is this then the official stand of the Commit-
tee?

186

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

MR. OPLE. I think the Committee would like to play
it safe. If Chairman Nolledo agrees, we will say that in
the case of the dominant groups — meaning, most of the
nation, except for the historically disadvantaged groups
with their own unique cultures and traditions — what
should apply is Committee Report No. 2 1 .

MR. RODRIGO. So, they may not be converted into
autonomous regions?

MR. OPLE. Not in the immediate future, not within
the immediate provisions of this Constitution, unless
there is a constitutional amendment later that would
make available certain federal features or powers of
government to all the regions other than the auto-
nomous regions.

from one another? May the organic act for Ilocos grant
more autonomy to Docos than to Bicol and vice-versa?

MR. NOLLEDO. In certain areas, they may be
uniform. For example, the setting up of a regional legis-
lature and an executive department, but taking into
account the particular characteristics of the region
because there may be some differences.

We will notice the analogy that several banks, for
example, \vere granted congressional charters like the
charters of the PNB and the DBP. Most of the provi-
sions are uniform, but there are certain provisions where
uniformity could not possibly be attained.

MR. RODRIGO. Autonomous regions are, I think,
very different from banks.

MR. RODRIGO. We have on record the statement of
Chairman Nolledo that under this provision, if the
Ilocos region and the Bicol region want to have auto-
nomy, they may do so.

MR. OPLE. I thmk he said this in the context of a
statement of aspirations which later on may follow.

MR RODRIGO. This is very important so I want a
definite answer.

Under these constitutional provisions, if they are
there be autonomous regions outside
of Mindanao and the Cordillera? This is very important.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President, under
action 9. That is why it will be noticed that in the
comment of Commissioner Rama, he was recommend-
mg that ethnic considerations be not the sole considera-
lon m the formation of autonomous regions. That is
w y we mcluded economic and communal factors,

et cetera, instead of concentrating on ethnic character-
istics.

MR. RODRIGO. So, this is not a mere declaration of
aspiration. This is actually authorized by this proposed
provision.

MR. NOLLEDO. No, I am just giving an example, by
analogy, that when Congress grants several charters, we
cannot bind Congress by saying that the rule of uni-
formity should be followed in all cases.

MR. RODRIGO. Let me then pursue this point. May
Samar and Leyte later on also be declared autonomous
regions, aside from Ilocos and Bicol? And after that
may Southern Tagalog be declared an autonomous
region also?

MR. NOLLEDO. I did not get the question.

MR. RODRIGO. The Gentleman said that under this
provision, Ilocos can be declared an autonomous re^on
with its organic act enacted by the legislature; the Bicol
region can be an autonomous region, with its organic act
enacted by the legislature. So, I want to pursue this
further.

Let us say that Samar and Leyte want to be an auto-
nomous region. Is it within the power of the legislature
to declare them an autonomous region and enact its
organic act?

MR. NOLLEDO. It is up to the legislature because
the question is somewhat vague in the latter part.

MR. NOLLEDO. It can be interpreted as aspirations
ecause later on certain regions can aspire for an appro-

rpoir>n<f ^ declare themselves autonomous

regions.

to ^onv^r?^Wn^ legislature then, if it wants

will enact the re ^ Bicol into autonomous regions.
Will enact the requisite organic act*^

MR. RODRIGO. I will come back to my question.
Do the two organic acts, one for Ilocos and the other
for Bicol, have to be uniform or may they be different

MR. RODRIGO. Is it within the power?

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman is talking of the
organic act and also whether or not Congress can declare
Samar and Layte, whose people are all Warays, an auto-
nomous region. Should Congress so decide, why not?

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, the two are inseparable, based
on the proposed provisions that an autonomous region
is created by enacting an organic act for that purpose.

MR. NOLLEDO. And subject to the holding of the
plebiscite.

MR. RODRIGO. All right. How about Central
Luzon? May we convert it into an autonomous region?

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

187

MR. NOLLEDO. Why not?

MR. RODRIGO. Southern Tagalog?

MR. NOLLEDO. Why not?

MR. RODRIGO. Central Visayas . . . and each of
these will have its own different organic act.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. If one will read the Constitu-
tions of Switzerland, Spain and other countries — I
mentioned these some few hours ago — one will notice
that these regions were autonomous and granted
separate legislatures and executive departments.

MR. RODRIGO. Are they granted different auto-
nomous powers, such that some cantons have more
autonomous powers than other cantons?

MR. NOLLEDO. Generally, they have the same
powers.

MR. RODRIGO. That is it. Why should we not also
make it uniform in the Philippines, if we are going to
have a semifederal system of government? Why should
we favor one region, giving it more autonomy than
another region?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is why we are giving much
leeway to Congress to determine in which provisions
there must be uniformity, taking into account certain
factors, like economic factors, ethnic characteristics and
other idiosyncrasies of people living in different regions.

MR. RODRIGO. So, there might come a time when
half of the Philippines is composed of autonomous
regions and the other half not autonomous.

MR. NOLLEDO. It is possible, Madam President, and
I dream for complete autonomy to different regions in
the country.

MR. RODRIGO. So, we will have a country which is
half semifederal and half-unitary, is that it?

MR. NOLLEDO. Because of the provision that before
an autonomous region may exercise its powers there
should be a charter to be enacted by the Congress, it is
up for Congress to create such an alleged anomalous
situation. If Congress so decides that only one-half of
the country should be regionalized in the meantime,
then I think there is no constitutional inhibition to do
so. We should consider the fact that there is a need for a
plebiscite and there is also a need for a charter or an
organic act to be passed by Congress. Those factors
indicate that possibility. Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO. Yes, half semifederal and half-
unitary, depending on Congress.

MR. NOLLEDO. In that case, I think the tendency
on the part of the other regions, if other autonomous
regions have succeeded in their autonomy, would be to
apply for their respective charters.

MR. RODRIGO. If we want to make our country
semifederal, why not make it obligatory for the whole
country to be divided into autonomous regions so that
we will have uniformity? In that way, there will be no
favoritism and we will not be fragmented.

MR. NOLLEDO. If the Constitutional Commission so
decides, I will be the happiest man on earth. (Laughter)

MR. RODRIGO. I am asking the Gentleman those
questions to underscore the defects in their proposal.

MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I take this
opportunity to mention some things that are happening
in the unitaiy' system. Please permit me, if the Gentle-
man does not mind.

MR. RODRIGO. I am through with my questions
because there are others who want to interpellate.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

MR. NOLLEDO. In the meantime, as a continuing
answer to the Gentleman’s questions . . .

MR. RODRIGO. I will listen.

MR. NOLLEDO. I talked to several governors and
city mayors. They told me, “Mr. Nolledo, you know,
when we go to the national government, we cannot
find the Minister of Local Governments. Whether he is
hiding or not, we do not know. We go to Malacanang;
we do not find the President. The President is away or
they talk to us and we tell them our local problems.
They listen to us with sympathy but it seems that there
are no solutions to our problems. We invoke certain
implementing statutes; they tell us to wait. So, what
happens is that we go back to our provinces and cities
completely disgruntled and we entertain ill-feelings
against the national government. We become helpless;
we do not know what to do.”

MR. RODRIGO. I would like to state that I am in
favor of local autonomy. But if we will have local
autonomy, let it be uniform all over the Philippines.

MR. BENNAGEN. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Let me just recall what transpired
during the first meeting of the Committee on Local
Governments, when the idea of autonomous region was
first mentioned.

188

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

I remember General de Castro reacting in the same
manner that many of us are now reacting. And he said
something Uke: What will prevent the other regions
from asking for autonomy? I think my immediate
answer was something like this: “Just because we have
a law on divorce does not mean that everyone will seek
divorce. It depends on whether or not the relationship
will be so maintained, so that it is mutually beneficial.”
And we are saying that the grant of regional autonomy
here corrects an extremely uneven development across
regions. We feel that the creation of regional autonomy
will create a sufficient tension between regions, on one
hand, and central government, on the other. That some
kind of evening of the development process will take
place.

We are saying that the regional autonomy structure
will facilitate that catching up with the development
process in the more developed regions, because the
regional autonomy structure will be more responsive to
the particularities of the region, both culturally and
geographically, which is to say ecologically.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recog-
nized.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you. Madam President.

Would the Committee clarify certain matters?

MR. NOLLEDO. Gladly.

MR. DAVIDE. When the Committee speaks of auto-
nomous region, could a region be any of the 13 regions
now? Could it also be the traditional regions — Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao?

MR. NOLLEDO. It is possible. Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. It could also be possible that a region
which may be constituted under this is only a portion of
any of the 1 3 regions.

MR. NOLLEDO. It is possible.

MR. DAVIDE. Since it could be possible that a region
which was contemplated here may be a portion of any
ot the existing region, it could only be a province.

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a possibility.

MR. DAVIDE. In short, Cebu can apply as an auto-
nomous region.

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will notice that the
provisions state: “The legislature shall create auto-
nomous regions consisting of provinces and cities with
common historical . . .” It will be noticed also that in

the statutory construction, the plural includes the
singular and/or vice-versa. So I would consider that
there is a possibility.

MR. DAVIDE. That is the possibility. There is also a
rule in statutory construction that the plural can include
the singular.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, I agree.

MR. DAVIDE. So, under this proposal, Negros can
also apply as a distinct autonomous region.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE. Any province can apply, as a matter
of fact.

MR. NOLLEDO. In fact, I heard from many eco-
nomists that they would like each province to be
considered an autonomous region. In our Committee,
we received several letters to that effect.

MR. DAVIDE. As a matter of fact, any of the islands
belonging to a subprovince in Leyte, like the island of
Maripeti, which is a part of the subprovince of Biliran,
can also apply as an autonomous region?

MR. NOLLEDO. Before I answer that, it will be
noticed that in ' Switzerland we also have the cantons
which are very small, and within the canton there is eco-
nomic progress. We also have the so-called semi-canton
in answer to the question of Commissioner Rodrigo. So,
there are so many ramifications involved in an auto-
nomous government.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, under the proposal
semiautonomous regions may be created.

MR. NOLLEDO. That seems to be discretionary with
Congress.

MR. DAVIDE. But Congress is not prohibited.

MR. NOLLEDO. I do not think so.

MR. DAVIDE. It is not. In other words, Congress can
expand the territorial and political subdivisions as pro-
vided for in the Constitution.

MR. NOLLEDO. Subject to the plebiscite as required
by the provisions of Section 3 of Committee Report
No. 21.

MR. DAVIDE. So, is it the position of the Gentleman
that an ordinary law can be enacted by Congress, esta-
blishing other forms of political and territorial subdi-
visions like a semiautonomous region?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a possibility.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

189

MR. DAVIDE. By ordinary legislations?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, by ordinary legislation and in
answer to the question of Commissioner Bemas, a
charter is an ordinary legislation by Congress.

MR. DAVIDE. Correct. Is it the position of the Com-
mittee that an ordinary legislation can estabhsh a new
political unit not included in the definition of political
and territorial subdivisions in a Constitution?

MR. NOLLEDO. When we enumerated the provinces,
cities, municipalities, barrios and autonomous regions
as the territorial and political subdivisions of the Repub-
lic of the Philippines, we took into account the present
existing local government units and the formation of
future autonomous regions. The provisions do not
prevent Congress in creating other political units.

MR. DAVIDE. What is added are only the words
“autonomous region.” But I doubt very much if this
possibility can be carried out by ordinary legislation
without amending the Constitution.

Anyway, I will go to another point. Under the
proposal, there are many organic acts as there are
regions aspiring for autonomy.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that is the clear implication
of Section 9.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, the concept of the
Committee by an organic act is not a general organic
act applicable to all who might apply to become an
autonomous region?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, because of the possibility of
nonuniformity as already explained in answer to the
questions of Commissioner Rodrigo. Otherwise, we
would have adopted the draft of the University of the
Philippines recommending a general enabling act.

MR. DAVIDE. In other words, because of possible
nonuniformity, it is also possible that each of these
organic acts may differ from the other?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, but not substantially because,
as I said, there are provisions that must necessarily be
uniform.

MR. DAVIDE. Since each of these organic acts may
differ from the other, each may also not comply strictly
with the requirements provided for in the proposed
section on autonomous regions.

MR. NOLLEDO. What requirements is the Gentleman
referring to?

MR. DAVIDE. We have certain rights, prerogatives
and restrictions. These are the standards for the esta-
blishment of an autonomous region.

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman must be referring to
Section 1 2 which provides: “Within its territorial juris-
diction, the autonomous region shall have authority
over the following.” In that case, generally, the charter
or the organic act to be granted should substantially
set forth provisions covering these instances set forth in
Section 12.

MR. DAVIDE. Is it not just possible that the Consti-
tution mandates Congress to enact a general regional
autonomy code under which regions wanting to become
autonomous would merely apply? Like in the Local
Government Code now, if a municipality wants to
become a highly urbanized city, it can apply after
meeting the requirements?

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, I think in the realm of
possibility, that can be done in terms of the general
principles subject, of course, to some kind of provi-
sion that there would be variations to respond to the
particularities of the ecology and culture of the area.

MR. DAVIDE. Under this particular proposal, when
will an autonomous region begin to have a distinct
juridical personality?

MR. NOLLEDO. To my mind, juridical personality
will begin when all the conditions required by the
Constitution are complied with; namely, when there is
an organic act and when majority of the voters in the
region have opted to operate under the autonomous
government.

MR. DAVIDE. Since this is an organic act, it may
also be subject to the principles of initiative and refer-
endum as provided for in the Article on the Legislative
and, therefore, the law may be rejected or disapproved
through a referendum all over the country. A refer-
endum and initiative operate all over the country
because we require a certain percentage of the total
number of votets at any given time from all over the
country. So, an organic act creating an autonomous
region for a certain particular area may be rejected by
the votes of all the people of the Philippines by way of a
referendum.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank the Gentleman for asking
that question because, as far as I am concerned, then
should be an amendment, if necessary, to make th
creation of an autonomous region an exception to tha
rule. We did not foresee that situation. We are grateful
to the Gentleman for calling our attention to it.

MR. DAVIDE. And similarly it can be amended also
through initiative by a vote of a certain percentage of
the qualified electors all over the Philippines.

MR. NOLLEDO. That would be the inevitable con-
clusion, if we consider the charter or the organic act
as mere legislation.

190

MONDAY, AUGUST 11,1 986

MR. DAVIDE. But is it really an ordinary legislation?
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. It is not really a part or a supplement
of the Constitution which can be repealed or superseded
by an amendment. But even granting that it is a part of
the Constitution, rather it is supplementary and could
only be repealed or modified by an amendment, the
initiative under the Article on Amendments can also
repeal the same.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes.

MR. DAVIDE. May a portion or a component unit
of an autonomous region secede from the mother unit?
For instance, we have an autonomous region in Central
Visayas, can Cebu secede from the autonomous region?

MR. NOLLEDO. Section 3 can apply to it. Section 3
of Committee Report No. 21 provides:

No autonomous region, province, city, municipality, or
banio may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its
boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with
criteria established by law.

It seems to me it is subject to the plebiscite as I
already mentioned and that the questions should fall
under this section.

MR. DAVIDE. Under that particular section?

a ^ complying with the criteria

s a ished by law, now the Lx)cal Government Code,
and subject to the holding of the plebiscite.

MR. DAVIDE. So, that particular rule will be made
apphcable to the autonomous regions.

plebiscite that establishes the commencement of the
juridical personality of an autonomous region — suppose
in a particular area, which is supposed to be included
in the autonomous region, the people rejected the
proposal of the autonomy, can that particular area now
be compelled to join the autonomous region? A specific
example is Central Visayas.

MR. NOLLEDO. I know that because we considered
that possibility. It seems to me that presents a complica-
tion, but as far as we are concerned, we believe that we
decide on whether or not the plebiscite is in favor of the
creation of an autonomous region by taking into
account the entire voting within the region.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes, but that would be imposing the
will of others on the will of the people in a particular
component unit. In this specific example, there is a
move to establish an autonomous region in Central
Visayas, composed merely of four provinces — Siquijor,
Negros Oriental, Bohol and Cebu. But almost one-half
of the total voting population of the entire regiori
comes from Cebu and Cebu rejects the proposal or it
does not want to join. Would the Gentleman now con-
sider Cebu, bound by the entire votes of the other
provinces, and compel Cebu to become a member of
that autonomous region?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a very good question.
Madam President, but I will tell the Gentleman my own
opinion without binding the Committee. Because of the
democratic process of being bound by the majority,
then Cebu must comply. However, Congress itself may
lay down certain conditions that if any province or any
unit so decides not to join the autonomous region, that
decision should be respected. It is possible that Congress
may lay down the condition in the organic act.

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes.

So, secession by a component unit is

still possible.

MR. NOLLEDO. Of the autonomous regions?

MR. DAVIDE. Yes.

MR. NOLLEDO. Subject to the
stated therein.

conditions already

MR. DAVIDE. But there

is no specific proposal now

» — oir

to autonomous regions?

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you for that information
because at the appropriate time, there is a need for an
amendment in that respect.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you.

MR. DAVIDE. We will go to the regular local govern-
mental units. Upon the effectivity of this Constitution,
the existing Local Government Code shall govern the
local government units because, under the proposal,
there is no mandate to Congress to enact a local
government code. So, necessarily, the existing Local
Government Code shall continue to govern all these
local government units, except the autonomous
region.

MR. NOLLEDO. There is none.

MR. DAVIDE Anyway, since there is a piebiscite to
be conducted before an autonomous region can come
into being - meanmg to say, it is the approval in the

MR. NOLLEDO. Except if inconsistent with the
provisions of the Constitution that we may approve.

MR. DAVIDE. When the Gentleman says “except
when inconsistent,” would it mean, therefore, that there

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

191

is a need to amend the Local Government Code to a
certain extent?

MR. NOLLEDO. I think it is not necessary. Any
provision of the Local Government Code that is in-
consistent with the newly approved or ratified Consti-
tution should necessarily be revoked.

MR. DAVIDE. What about the initiative as presently
provided for in the Local Government Code?

MR. NOLLEDO. I ask the Gentleman in return, is
that inconsistent with the provisions on initiative of the
legislative department?

MR. DAVIDE. I am asking the Committee about this.

MR. NOLLEDO. Because if there is no inconsistency,
then the initiative may continue.

MR. DAVIDE. So, we will leave it to the Supreme
Court to determine?

MR. NOLLEDO. Should there be a controversy.

MR. DAVIDE. What about on referendum?

MR. NOLLEDO. The same answer holds true. Madam
President.

MR. DAVIDE. Recall?

MR. NOLLEDO. We did not have any provision on
recall because in the 1973 Constitution that provision
was authorized to be included in the Local Government
Code. But I understand that there are some Com-
missioners who would like to present amendments
substantially the same as the provision of the 1973
Constitution, mandating Congress to enact a new local
government code.

MR. DAVIDE. Yes. Otherwise, the provision on recall
may no longer be available even if it is already provided
for in the Local Government Code.

MR- NOLLEDO. Yes, based on our report but we are
expecting an amendment to reinstate the principle of
recall.

MR. DAVIDE. Another point is this Metropolitan
Manila Commission of the metropolitan government. I
understand that the position of the Committee is that
the creation ot this government is unconslitutional.

MR. NOLLEDO. That is my personal opinion. I
cannot bind the Committee.

MR. DAVIDE. What is the stand of the Committee so
we could be guided accordmgly in the presentation of
amendments or in voting on this particular proposal?

MR. NOLLEDO. As far as the members of the Com-
mittee are concerned, it is not necessary to make a stand
because we did not adopt the provisions on metropo-
litan government anyway.

MR. DAVIDE. By not adopting a provision on
metropolitan government, it would necessarily follow
that once approved, this proposal would, in effect, put
an end or abolish the existing metropohtan government?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, that would be the necessary
effect.

MR. DAVIDE. The necessary further effect would be
that municipalities which were included under the
Metropolitan Manila Commission would then be con-
sidered returned to their mother units?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is also my personal opinion.
But the Commissioner knows that the mayors of Metro
Manila came to see both of us and they are in favor of
maintaining the geopolitical unit, which opinion I share
with. Their existence can still be justified by Section 5
of our committee report which provides that local
government units may group themselves, consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services and resources for pur-
poses commonly beneficial to them. And I would like
the Constitutional Commission to know that the mayors
of Metropolitan Manila are in favor of dismantling the
Metro Manila Commission but that they would like to
set up a coordinating agency in lieu of the Metro Manila
Commission under this Section 5 of Committee Report
No. 21.

MR. DAVIDE. Under that particular section that the
Commissioner has cited, allowing local governmental
units to group together in pursuit of common objectives
for their mutual benefit, would it require a plebiscite?
Or is it only the act of the executives of these local
government units?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is a very good question. I do
not think it requires a plebiscite.

MR. DAVIDE. In effect there is a confederacy but a
ygj-y loose confederacy?

MR. NOLLEDO. I agree with the Commissioner.

MR. DAVIDE. But in such a particular case the lives
or the future of the people will be affected. Why do we
not require a plebiscite?

MR. NOLLEDO. We could not require a plebiscite
because the powers of the coordinating agency involved
here are very limited. They refer only to essential
services like garbage, cleaning of streets, et cetera.

MR. DAVIDE. Thank you, Madam President, and I
also thank the sponsor.

192

MONDAY, AUGUST 11,1 986

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Villacorta be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, I just would
ike to direct some questions to the Committee. First of
ill, I would like to say that I am sympathetic to the idea
of regional autonomy particularly for the Muslims and
he Cordillera regions. I would like to raise the questions
isked by the UP Local Government Center in relation to
local autonomy in general. For the information of the
body, the Local Government Center of the UP has con-
ducted research and training courses for local govern-
ment officials for several decades throughout the
country and has been in close touch with the local
governments at all levels. The staff of this Center
studied very carefully the committee report on local
governments and the first question that they asked had
to do with local autonomy in general, and I quote:

To ensure that local autonomy would help rather than
hinder the promotion of democracy and efficiency at the
local, as well as national levels, the State should undertake
political and administrative reforms in local governments
to accompany the promotion of autonomy; otherwise,
t e grant of substantial local autonomy would be a disaster
at both levels since it would exacerbate the problems of
oc oligarchy, corruption and incompetence while making
e national policy more vulnerable to centrifugal forces.

There should be separate constitutional provisions
against t e maintenance and operation of local political
ynasties. For example, an absolute ceiling on reelection
0 e same individuals and rules against close relatives
teaming up or alternating in political positions at different
eve s o government. There should also be constitutional
an statutory provisions for more effective community con-
0 to insure that their local governments are both re-
sponsive and responsible in the broader segments of the
community, for example, popular initiatives in local
legislation and recall of errant officials.

The national government should complement these
measures by establishing clear and coordinated policies
an standards by guiding and gauging local government

would like to know is whether
nthTr P^o^^ding for these areas of concern in

Elections that^ Would contemplate on adding i
^ of these areas of appreli

MR. NOLLEDO. We aeree u/uu + 1 , u ..u

Commissioner has just ^^^/^servations the

there are two safeguardTrSom le 7 "h k

the Constitutiona, t/ec^ f th"e

policy on recall, we wUl welcome any proposal to
amend our committee report. I think the observations
are well-taken.

MR. VILLACORTA. Thank you.

MR. NOLLEDO. This is just an example. There are
many provisions now embodied in the report of the
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers de-
signed to eradicate or eliminate graft and corruption in
all levels of government.

MR. VILLACORTA. Thank you.

I have just one more question. Section 9 starts with
the sentence “The legislature shall create autonomous
regions . . . et cetera.” Commissioner Nolledo always
mentions the Constitution of Spain. If we will notice in
Chapter 3, Article 143 entitled: “Concerning the Auto-
nomous Communities,” the auxiliary verb used is
“may.”

MR. NOLLEDO. In what section is that?

MR. VILLACORTA. I am talking about Section 9.
Does the Commissioner mean the Spanish Constitution
or his own provision?

MR. NOLLEDO. I have here Sections 135 upwards of
the Spanish Constitution on autonomous communities.
What article is the Commissioner referring to?

MR. VILLACORTA. I am referring to Article 143.

MR. NOLLEDO. Article 143 in Chapter 3, and it
entitled: “Concerning the Autonomous Communities.

MR. VILLACORTA. That is right.

The Committee is giving the initiative to the legisla-
ture, but I notice that in the Spanish Constitution, the
initiative is given to the communities themselves thereby
preventing a situation where to suit the politica
interests of legislators, artificial autonomous regions
may be set up.

Paragraph 1 of Article 143 states:

In the exercise of the right of autonomy recognized in
Article II of the Constitution, bordering provinces with
common historical, cultural and economic characteristics,
the island territories and the provinces with a historical,
regional entity may accede to self-government and consti-
tute themselves into autonomous communities in ac-
cordance with the provisions of that title and the respective
statutes.

Paragraph 2 states:

The initiatj^ for the autonomous process belongs to all
the interested deputations or to the pertinent inter-island
body, et cetera.

Moreover, I would like to emphasize that the Spanish
Constitution does not use “shall” but “may.” There is
merit in the usage of “may” over “shall,” I think it says
“The legislature may create” rather than “shall create.”
This does not make the creation of autonomous regions

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

193

mandatory inasmuch as there were reservations raised
by Commissioners Ople, Rodrigo and others about
regions other than the Cordillera and the MusUm regions
wanting to be autonomous. The use of this auxiliary
verb would probably make the intention of the Com-
mittee more flexibly implemented. It may not be wise
to mandate the creation of autonomous regions for we
are either not ready for it or it is simply not suited for
some regions. Autonomy may be suited to those regions
wherein the provinces or cities have sufficient local
government levels. To mandate the creation of another
intervening layer of local government between the
province and the national government without necessa-
rily taking into account the specific or special needs of
the area may just result in more bureaucracy not to
mention the waste of resources since the autonomous
regions will necessarily mean tlie creation of more
administrative structures. Lastly, the second hne of
Section 9. . .

MR. NOLLEDO. Will the Commissioner please permit
me to give my answer to his first question because he is
already proceeding to another question?

I suggest that the Commissioner analyze Article 143,
Chapter 3 of the Constitution of Spain concernmg the
autonomous communities. The word “may” refers to
the provinces, bordering provinces, to the island terri-
tories and to the people applying for autonomy. So the
word “may” is on the part of the provinces and the
people. Here in our provision, it is on the part of
Congress, assuming that there is a corresponding apphca-
tion to create autonomous regions. The moment there is
an application to the Congress of the Philippines to
create autonomous regions, we are mandating the legis-
lature to so create as long as the conditions required by
the Constitution are complied with. So, the word
“may” refers to the people themselves. They may or
they may not create autonomous communities. So there
is a great world of difference between Section 9 of our
Committee Report No. 21 and Article 143 of the
Spanish Constitution adverted to by the Gentleman.

MR. VILLACORTA. On the contrary. Article 144, if
I may proceed, says:

. The Cortes Generales, by means of an organic law, may

for reasons of national interest: a) Authorize the establish-
ment of an autonomous community, et cetera

Again, the word “may” is used here, not “shall.” Hence,
there is always the use of the word “may” in order to
counter any possible danger of all communities at all
levels demanding that they be considered autonomous.

MR. NOLLEDO. In relation to that, pardon me if I
am defending Section 9, while we use the word “shall,”
in effect, if the autonomous region is not viable as
stated in answer to the question of Commissioner
Romulo, Congress may deny the grant of an organic
act. So there is some discretion left to Congress.

MR. VILLACORTA. Lastly, line 8 of Section 9 of
Resolution No. 5 1 1 says: “consisting of provinces and
cities with common historical, geographic, et cetera.”
Did the Committee really want to use the word “com-
mon” or would it had been clearer if the term “dis-
tinctive” was used? I think any group in the Philip-
pines can invoke this because we do have so much
commonality as far as historical, geographic, cultural,
linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic and other
characteristics are concerned. What the Commissioner
is referring to are actually those communal groups or
communities that have distinctive historical, geographic,
and other characteristics.

MR. NOLLEDO. We will consider any amendment to
that effect.

MR. VILLACORTA. Thank you very much.

MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Com-
missioner Quesada be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President, first of all, I
would hke to express my support to the proposed
amendment. I feel very strongly that we must respond
to the people who have expressed such aspiration like
the Bangsa Moro people and the people of the Cor-
dilleras. While it is true that the details on how this will
be operational would still be worked out, I suppose that
the brilliant minds of this Commission would be a great
help as the Committee crystallizes some of those areas
which are not anticipated. Such areas may cause
possible confusion, but basically these are the concerns
that we hope we should be able to respond to.

There are some questions I would like to raise and
one would be on Section 2 in relation to the sectoral
representation which would be prescribed by law. At
this point, does not the Commission think that there
should already be some kind of a guideline by the Com-
mission on the definition of these broad categories of
sectors to be represented in legislative bodies of local
governments? Just for the record, has the Commissioner
expressed the intendment of the Commission on such
sectoral representation?

MR. NOLLEDO. At the time this was formulated,
the Constitutional Commission has not yet passed even
on First Reading the provisions on sectoral representa-
tion, but we will be guided accordingly in the
determination of what sectoral representation should
mean.

We will notice that in the Local Government Code,
sectoral representation is also provided for, but it seems
to me that the members representing the sectors are
appointed by the President.

194

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

MS. QUESADA. Would the Commissioner consider
the classification that we had in the Legislative which
consisted of the peasants, farmers, youth, urban poor,
women and indigenous communities?

MR. BENNAGEN. That can serve as a broad guide-
line, but it may not be valid in certain cases because
some regions may not be sufficiently differentiated as
to allow this kind of representation. I think we will be
guided by the comprehensive investigation of the area
with respect to existing sectors.

ing. So the provisions on health as we have already
approved should bind the regional and other loc^
governments.

MS. QUESADA. So, the Commissioner would be
amenable to qualifying this paragraph 7 of Section 12
to correspond to what he has placed here which says:
“Protection of the environment in accordance with
standards and regulations of the national government”?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes.

MS. QUESADA. So, the Commissioner will leave this
to Congress to prescribe what sectors to be included and
excluded?

MR. BENNAGEN. Again, in consideration of the
existing realities in the regions, there should be some
systematic consultation with the regions.

At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair
to the Honorable Renato V. Sarmiento.

MS. QUESADA. The second point I want to ask
concerns the broad exercise of general supervision over
local governments by the President of the Philippines.

The Committee mentioned here in Section 12 - and
is w^ clearly defined for the autonomous region but
won er if this would also hold true for local govern-
men s ~ on line 19, paragraph 7 : “Establishment, opera-
ion and maintenance of regional health, welfare and
other social services.” Is the intendment of the Commit-
autonomous region formulate its own
standards and regulations insofar as health, welfare and
o er social services are concerned, or would they be

covered by the general standards of health at the
national level?

• NNAGEN. In general, we can say that there
mus e some general principles which should guide the
implementation of social services at the various levels.
At the same time, we are saying that the program should
SO respond to the characteristics at the local level; for
instance, the use of traditional medicine or, I think
more importantly with respect to the capability of the
oca regions, there must be some form of sharing with
respect to taxes to enable the local governments or the
regions to maintain a self-reliant social service program.

Hptprminin would be in the area c

aiitrmnmni^ ® Pnoilty or the program thrust in th

Hnwpvpr / ^ govemmeni

Howe er, I ani thmkmg of certain standards of tha

reduce the level of communicable diseases, would th
local governments be able to respond to tkat nation,
mandate for improving the level of health?

MS. QUESADA. Then the third point I would like to
reinforce is the item expressed by the Committee on
Section 8 which deals with local taxes and the sharing of
the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the
national wealth. I would just like to put on record that
there was a resolution also submitted to this Member by
the Province of Negros Oriental in relation to their geo-
thermal resources in the area of Palimpinon, Municipal-
ity of Valencia, which they felt did not really improve
the development of the province, although they were
hosting such resources. So, this is really to add on to
what Commissioner Ople already mentioned that a host
community does not really profit from such wealth
because it becomes part of the national wealth. I think
the people of Negros have already expressed this con-
cern — that local government should really partake of
the wealth and natural resource that they have in their
place.

These are all the questions I want to raise and I hope
that this body will be able to really iron out these
matters and to consider not to eliminate the concept of
autonomy for the people who have so loudly and clearly
expressed this desire to us.

Basically, this is the people’s cry for self-determina-
tion that we must respect, not for those who have not
yet expressed such will or aspiration but for those who
have already done so like the people of the Cordilleras
and the Bangsa Moro people.

Thank you.

MR. NOLLEDO. Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like
to express my thanks to Commissioner. Quesada for her
sympathetic understanding. Instead of showing indif-
ference, she set forth a wonderful rule, that we should
find ways and means by which we can serve our people
well because we, the members of the Committee, tried
our very best and il any of the Commissioners disagrees
with us, then he can suggest to us amendments and we
will subject ourselves to the will of the majority in this
Commission. The attitude of Commissioner Quesada is
overwhelming and I feel grateful to her. I think that that
should be the attitude of every Commissioner. Com-
missioner Quesada has manifested broad-mindedness
and generosity, as well as magnanimity.

the national mandate MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that
set lorth m the Constitution should be considered bind- Commissioner Suarez be recognized.

MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 1986

195

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Before
Commissioner Suarez interpellates the members of the
Committee, I think Commissioner Bennagen would like
to say something.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. I think we have moved away
a great deal from the rather innocuous provision on
regional autonomy to the rather threatening concept of
federalism. I think when we were discussing this in the
Committee, we had in mind nothing more than the
concrete elaboration of the 1973 Constitution, Section
1 1 of the General Provisions thereof, which says:

The State shall consider the customs, traditions, beliefs,

and interests of national cultural communities in the for-
mulation and implementation of State policies.

While sympathetic in its intent to the very concrete
concerns of cultural minorities, this provision was
honored more in the breach. As a matter of fact,
the commentary on this was put in a bronze plate along
the Chico River. What we are saying now is that we
trace historically the evolution of these various in-
digenous cultural communities. We begin to find out
that since the Spanish period, these cultural communi-
ties have been integrated into the national mainstream
as collectivities in contrast to the effort of the national
government to integrate Filipinos as individuals. Note
that since the Americans got in, they carried over the
distinctions already made by the Spanish government in
terms of Muslims, non-Christians, Christians, Indios,
and Fieles.

This was further elaborated on by the American
government and expressed administratively in the
creation of a number of organizations that deal speci-
fically with these cultural communities as collectivities,
not as individuals so much so that we have had even
after political independence organizations such as the
Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes and others which again
separated these groups from the larger Christian lowland
population. In other words, this has been long in
coming. These groups have retained distinctive charac-
teristics to warrant the proposed amendment expressed
earlier by Commissioner Villacorta.

The popular definitions of cultural minorities all
encompass the fact that they have been the least
westernized. This is a commentary on the degree of
westernization that has taken place amongst the low-
land Filipino Christians.

We are saying, therefore, that these groups - the
people of the Cordillera; the Bangsa Moro; the Lumad
(which is a generic term for the various cultural com-
munities in Mindanao, as well as the scattered tribes in
Mindoro and Sierra Madre); and the Ati or Negritoes of
the Visayas — have arrived at a self-definition which
separates them from the overwhelming majority of
lowland Filipino Christians. It is in recognition of this
self-assertion of their peoplehood that we have this
regional autonomy provision apart from those other
considerations that have already been discussed such as

efficiency, manageability and all others that could very
well apply to local government. However, regional
autonomy specifically responds to these distinctive
features that have separated them from lowland
majorities for so long.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). The
lionorable Commissioner from Pampanga is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I would like to follow the thrust that was presented
by Commissioner Quesada and confirmed by Com-
missioner Nolledo that we should be contributive to
this particular Article. Indeed, it is susceptible to many
interpretations. I take it that the main thrust of this
Article is to decentralize the government.

Is my understanding correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. Is the Commissioner referring to
Section 9?

MR. SUAREZ. Yes, practically to Section 9. And the
Commissioner would like to get away from the central-
ized government initiated by Spain and the United
States even under the 1935 Constitution?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes; I made the statement here and
I know many may disagree that the unitary system is
the cause of all the ills in the country. We will never go
far if we stick to the unitary system, if we do not keep
out of the maverick shell of conservatism and obso-
lescence.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

Your Committee has been bombarded with questions
regarding the possible proliferation of autonomous
regions in our country. But I notice that under Section
9, the Committee provided for the common character-
istics which would serve as basis for our legislature to
create autonomous regions. Is that not correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, but we added the words “eco-
nomic characteristics.” We did not concentrate on the
historical, linguistic or ethnic idiosyncracies.

MR. SUAREZ. So, can we clarify this point? When
we speak of common historical, geographic, cultural,
linguistic, ethnic, communal and economic character-
istics within a proposed autonomous region, do we
intend all of these characteristics to coexist, to concur
and to coincide together in a substantial degree?

MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily, because some of
them may not concur.

MR. SUAREZ. I see. So it is possible that an auto-
nomous region could be created and established even if
it has only geographic characteristics?

196

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

MR. NOLLEDO. That is possible but if I were the
Congress I woiild go far when I grant the organic act.

MR. SUAREZ. The same is true with respect to the
other characteristics, like historical, cultural, linguistic,
ethnic, communal and economic. They could exist
independently of each other; nonetheless, they could
serve as the bases for the creation of an autonomous
region. Is that understanding correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. Commissioner Bennagen would like
to answer.

•

MR. BENNAGEN. In the history of autonomous
regions, there are these substantial characteristics so
enumerated, and to distinguish autonomy from the
concept of a federal state, we in the Committee say that
autonomy refers to regions that really show distinctive-
ness with respect to culture and ecology.

MR. SUAI^Z. So, the Commissioner would say that
in a substantial degree, all of these characteristics must
be common in that autonomous region?

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

Under Section 1 5, the Committee is referring to two
proposed autonomous regions - Mindanao and the
LordiUera. I heard Commissioner Ople mention the fact

a e Provinces of Davao, Cotabato and Palawan are
not mcluded or may not be included within the auto-
nomous regions of Mindanao. Is my understanding in
this regard correct?

. ALONTO. Under the Tripoli Agreement those
proi^cw that the Commissioner mentioned which were
onginaUy part of the supposed autonomous regions to
be established were eliminated by the last regime when
it st^ed to put up these two autonomous regions in
Mmdanao; namely. Regions IX and XII. But as far as
this committee report is concerned, these autonomous
r^ons existing now in Mindanao are considered points
o reference only because as we notice. Section 1 6
states th^ the first legislature under this Constitution
shall, witlM one year from election of its Merifbers, pass
nan autonomous regions of Minda-

Kv fhf. r ^ And in passing the organic acts

Slirds refers back to Section 9. In other

^tSiom^s specifically refer to the

cinwL wm ^ existence. Under Section 9,

wouU justify tSe " V ”

ha»ineconunonhistoncal.geog4hL;cuSta^^^^^

other cSSS

to foim one autonomous region. In other words,
Congress is not reaUy bound by the existing auto^
.nomous regions m Mmdanao when the organic acts will
be enacted in the future.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

I just want to clear up this point because geograph-
ically speaking, Mindanao is composed of many
provinces. However, for purposes of this committee
report, is the Committee envisioning the inclusion or the
exclusion of Davao, Cotabato and Palawan so that this
would be on record for future legislation?

MR. BENNAGEN. May I answer that, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

The issue here is not the existing political boundaries
but the claim to ancestral land. At the bottom of the
struggles of the people of the Cordillera, the Mangyans
of Mindanao, the Dumagats of Tanay, and much more
so in the case of the Bangsa Moro people is the claim to
their ancestral land. Having said that, we wish to
emphasize that the claim to ancestral land is the claim
to their peoplehood because their peoplehood is based
on the land, in contrast to the western claim to the land
by means of a piece of paper. That has to be recon-
sidered apart from existing political boundaries.

MR. SUAREZ. So what is the final answer? Are these
three provinces going to be excluded for purposes of
creating regional autonomous regions in Mindanao?

MR. ALONTO. Mr. Presiding Officer, if we read very
well these different sections, we could immediately
imagine and conceive that it is Congress that is actually
going to choose the cities and provinces that will corn-
pose the autonomous regions. Likewise, Congress is
bound to enact the organic acts after the majority
of the people would have been brought together in a
referendum.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. NOLLEDO. In other words, we do not like to
mention any statement that certain provinces are not
included or should be excluded because we would like
to give Congress a leeway to determine what shall
compose a particular autonomous region.

MR. SUAREZ. So, probably, the correct interpreta-
tion is “regions in Mindanao” instead of “regions of
Mindanao.”

Is that the meaning sought to be conveyed? I ask
so because when we speak of regions of Mindanao and
the Cordillera, we are referring only to two regions.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, that is correct. Incidentally,
we wish to declare that when the period of amendments
comes, we would like to amend Section 9 to change
“provinces and cities,” which are existing political cate-
gories, into AREAS AND POPULATIONS so that we
will not be delimited by existing concepts of provinces.
We feel that the existing boundaries do not represent
cultural and ecological realities, rather they were re-

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

197

sponses to some political needs and administrative
requirements. We wish to correct that.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you; and I suppose the rule in
the case of Mindanao would apply also to the case of
the Cordillera.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. We will not have to mention the
provinces composing the probable autonomous region
of the Cordillera . . .

MR. BENNAGEN. . . . where it does not reflect the
ecological and cultural realities.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

May we now go to Section 8 referring to “proceeds of
the exploitation and development of the national wealth
within their respective areas.” I take it that the word
“proceeds” refers to royalties from the exploitation of
the natural resources in that area.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes, that would include also
special charges and schedule of fees.

MR. SUAREZ. When we speak of the creation of an
autonomous region by virtue of an organic act that is
going to be passed by the legislature , are we thinking in
terms of holding a plebiscite before or after the passage
of the organic act? In other words, in addition to the
prior consultations with the local elective officials, I
take it that the people have to be consulted about the
possible establishment of an autonomous region. Will
that consultation be made before or after?

MR. NOLLEDO. Obviously, the consultation should
be made before.

MR. SUAREZ. Is it going to take the form of a plebi-
scite called for the purpose?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is possible, should Congress
so decide. I have answered a similar question like this
before.

MR. SUAREZ. So, before Congress would initiate the
legislation which would amount to the passage of an
organic act , there must first be a plebiscite called for
the purpose and that plebiscite would have to be con-
ducted in that particular autonomous region. Is that
correct?

MR. NOLLEDO. I would recommend that it be so.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. I think some exceptions have
to be made particularly in the case of the Cordilleras
and the Bangsa Moro because of their historical parti-
cularities. In other words, in practice, they have been

having some kind of self-determination, whatever their
government’s name is, except that we now call it region-
al autonomy, and that they have so expressed this desire
in so many ways. I feel that this proposal is even going
beyond the spirit of consultation and initiative. Over the
centuries, they have expressed this initiative or this
assertion of right to self-determination to choose their
path of economic, political and cultural development.
They have to be considered as exemptions; but in the
future, I would imagine there will be cases of applica-
tion for regional autonomy.

MR. SUAREZ. So, in that particular case of the
Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, the Commissioner will
advance the proposition that there is no need anymore
to call a plebiscite.

MR. BENNAGEN. That is my view.

MR. SUAREZ. So, Congress can immediately enact
those contemplated organic acts.

MR. BENNAGEN. I would even plead that this Com-
mission should declare both the Cordillera and Bangsa
Moro as autonomous regions.

MR. SUAREZ. Is the Commissioner including the
Bangsa Moro in that proposition?

MR. BENNAGEN. I intend to do that.

MR. SUAREZ. And for all the other regions that may
have to be established and declared as autonomous re-
gions, the Commissioner will require, as a condition
sine qua non, the holding of a plebiscite?

MR. BENNAGEN. I think that is the intent of
Section 9.

MR. NOLLEDO. When the Commissioner said that
the people of the Cordilleras have continuously ex-
pressed their desire to set up an autonomous region, he
only expressed his personal opinion?

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. NOLLEDO. I think a plebiscite would still be
necessary. Congress may require such plebiscite to make
the sentiments of the people of the Cordillera official.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

My last question has something to do with Section
14.

MR. NOLLEDO. Section 14 is on page 3 of Commit-
tee Report No. 25.

MR. SUAREZ. That is right. The second sentence
disturbs me a little. It states:

198

MONDAY, AUGUST 11 , 1 986

When circumstances so warrant, the regional government
may establish its own special forces subject to supervision
by the national armed forces and under such provisions as
the law may provide.

Does not the Commissioner see any danger lying
behind this provision? We might be setting up regional
warlords.

MR. NOLLEDO. The Commissioner will notice that
this was taken from the Tripoli Agreement but with
several conditions set forth therein. In the Tripoli
Agreement there is no qualification whatsoever, but
here we have the words “when circumstances so war-
rant, . . . subject to supervision by the national armed
forces and under such provisions as the law may
provide.”

In the Tripoli Agreement, there is a statement to the
effect that the regional government shall be authorized
to establish its own special forces. In order that we may
temper the fear expressed from different quarters on the
setting up of such special forces, we laid down the
following conditions: (1) when circumstances so war-
rant, (2) that they must be subject to supervision or
even control by the national armed forces; (3) that
they shall be subject to provisions of law that may be
provided by Congress.

And the Commissioner will notice that the last
sentence also states: “Such special forces shall be under
the command of the President of the Philippines.”

I know that there are many who are objecting to this;
so we will entertain amendments at the proper time.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com-
missioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.

th ^ respect to the chairman and members c
e ommittee, I beg to disagree with the establishmei
o specml forces knowing fully well that in the Commi
Provisions of which I am a member, tl
HDF, categorized as a paramilitary unit, has bee
dismantled and the provision therefor has been tran
erre to the Article on Transitory Provisions. Tl
these special forces have led to many thinj
w ^ ave been the subject of so many complaints i

thl human rights people, resulting j

ons 1 u lonalization of a human rights organizatio;

haw^whnt^’ Article on General Provisions, w

hp nraaniy'n^ Citizens’ armed force which ma

be organized m accordance with law. These are tl

trainees or the reserve offirerc • t v

j <Jiucers m the region who may 1

1 given certain allov

ances, and the law wiU so provide for their use in tl
campaign against insurgency.

Also, when we talk of local poUce agencies here, tl
provision in the Article on General Provisions - and th

is sponsored by Commissioner Natividad — states that
there shall be a national police force which should be
supervised and controlled by the National Police Com-
mission. However, Congress may provide for whatever
control there may be for the local chief executive.

The reason here is the professionalization of police
agencies. We know that the police force has the main
duty of maintaining peace and order and protecting life
and property. When we talk of that duty, we are talking
of the lives of the 54 million people and their property.

And so. Commissioner Natividad and I felt that there
is a need to professionalize our police forces if we want
our lives and property to be protected by the police and
if we want peace and order in our country.

If the Committee will permit. Commissioner Nativi-
dad and I will propose certain amendments on this
provision at the proper time.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. SUAREZ. Is the Commissioner saying that he is
with us in expressing fear and apprehension about the
establishment of special forces, the functions of which
are not defined definitely?

MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. I had had very bad ex-
periences about these special forces from the time I was
still a major up to the time I became a general.

MR. BENNAGEN. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com-
missioner Bennagen is recognized.

MR. BENNAGEN. In connection with the issue on
special forces, mention was made of the possibility of
resurgence or even the emergence of warlordism in
certain areas. I think we should look at warlordism from
a sociological and historical perspective. It is not some-
thing that is easily given in any particular region, and
apropos of this, I would like to read what Rene Santiago
of the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planning
manifested in our deliberations:

Warlordism is really a creature of our patronage politics.
Whether federalism will encourage it, more or less, can only
be speculated upon. What is clear, however, is that a
centralized form of government forces a President or any
national leader, for that matter, to rely on ward leaders
whose main strengths, in turn, lie in their access to the
national levers of powers; that is, their ability to lobby for
largesse from above. This unholy alliance perpetuates the
underdevelopment of the countryside on two counts:

(1) it destroys self-reliance as it fosters dependence on
external funding to develop; and (2) it does not put a
premium on performance and on viability.

In addition, I would like to say that the emergence of
people’s organizations, the increasing political awareness
and maturity of the people would be a strong antidote

MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986

199

to the resurgence of warlordism where it originally
existed, and its prevention in areas where no such
phenomenon has still taken place.

MR. SUAREZ. So the ultimate resolution of this
problem will be whether it benefits the people or not.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes.

MR. SUAREZ. 1 am referring to the possible creation
of special forces.

MR. BENNAGEN. Yes. I think we should have that
foremost in our minds, that the provisions for auto-
nomous regions should be directed towards the benefit
of the people in the autonomous region and, of course,
not to mention, maintaining always the complementa-
rity of the autonomous region with the national society.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

MR. PADILLA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just
make one short statement?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com-
missioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA. This is on special forces. I heard the
distinguished chairman state that the Tripoli Agreement
authorizes the creation or establishment of special
forces. That is not exactly accurate.

The Tripoli Agreement has several items. Among
them is the special regional security forces subject to
discussion later on. The Tripoli Agreement does not
provide or stipulate . . .

MR. NOLLEDO. I understand that the conditions
under which special forces may be formed should be
subject to discussion. That was made clear to our Com-
mittee by some Muslims who appeared before us.

MR. PADILLA. Yes, because when I wrote an article
on the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 I had occasion to
read and analyze it. -There are many provisions therein
subject to discussion later on. Among them is the right
to set up schools. Also, the Muslims shall have their
own administrative system, financial and economic
system, special regional security forces, and others
under Section 14. But these are not so stipulated. They
are only to be discussed or considered later.

Thank you.

MR. NOLLEDO. I thank Commissioner Padilla for
the enlightenment, because we were made to under-
stand that the principle was approved but the conditions
were subject to discussion.

MR. ABUBAKAR. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com-
missioner Abubakar is recognized.

MR. ABUBAKAR. There is an apprehension in
connection with this organization of special local
forces. The Committee, probably, saw the need as it
applies to a particular situation. In many provinces,
we have the Philippine Constabulary-INP, but its police
force is drawn from outside the province. Therefore,
while members are there to maintain peace and order,
they are not able to appreciate the local reaction — the
temperament or the attitudes of the people. This could
only promote misunderstanding between those who
are there to maintain peace and order and the citizens
who are supposed to be protected by them.

That is why in many places, in case this situation
arises, many local or provincial officials would ask the
national government if they can organize in their own
particular province or municipality a force that would
understand the situation there and the people who
might be in opposition. This action will enable the
people to reach an understanding with this special force
so as not to create a situation of actual military clashes.
This is in the interest of the people. We refer to a special
force that is not to be used for a special purpose but one
who understands the people because its members are
from the same place and they know very well the
situation.

MR. DE CASTRO. Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com-
missioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO. To allay the fears of Com-
missioner Abubakar, when the General Provisions will
be discussed, particularly the provision on citizens’
armed force and local police, it will be well- explained
that when we talk of such citizens’ armed force, we
would refer to the reservists in the area.

The reserve officers in the area will be called to active
duty pursuant to law, be given training and will serve
their respective areas against insurgency. Also, there will
be a national police force which shall be under the
National Police Commission.

However, when we talk of the local police forces, the
members would be people from the same region or from
the same municipality because it is the intent that the
police must be civilian in nature and in character. So, if
Commissioner Abubakar has a son or a grandson who
likes to be a member of the police force, he can be
enlisted in the police force in the Commissioner’s
region. It will not be possible under our proposal that a
man from Ilocos will go to Sulu to be a policeman there.

MR. ABUBAKAR. That is correct.

MR. DE CASTRO. In this proposal, a man from Sulu,
a reservist, will be recruited as a policeman or as a mem-

200

MONDAY, AUGUST 1 1 , 1 986

her of the citizens’ armed force to be trained and used
against insurgency in that area. It will be the officer
from Sulu who will lead the citizens’ armed force. That
is our concept when we talk of citizens’ armed forces
and a national police force under the direction of the
National Police Commission. Of course, when one is
designated or appointed as a policeman in his own area,
the first thing he will do is to first pass an examination,
more particularly an aptitude test. Next he has to go to
the National Police Academy to train since this is really
a requirement for professionalization. Moreover, all
officers from an area shall be graduates of the National
Police Academy in Tagaytay. Hence when someone goes
to his respective municipality to serve as a policeman, he
is already trained and professionalized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). May
we ask Commissioner Suarez to ask his last question?

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer; I
will yield to the others after this.

MR. NOLLEDO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I have
the floor because this is very material.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Com-
missioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO. With the kind indulgence of Com-
missioner Suarez, I have found the Tripoli Agreement
provision which states:

Special, regional security forces are to be set up in the

area of the autonomy for the Muslims in the South of the

Philippines. The relationship between these forces and the

central security forces shall be fixed later.

That is the provision of the Tripoli Agreement as
presented to us by the Bangsa Moro for the Philippine
Constitution of 1986.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you for the clarification.

MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

saying earlier is that we would like to state explicitly in
the Constitution that the Cordillera region, minus the
details of its definition and its charter, and the Bangsa
Moro, minus its territorial boundaries and all that,
should be considered autonomous regions, without
saying that the charter of the organic acts will not be
submitted to a plebiscite or a referendum. This will have
to be approved by the people themselves.

MR. SUAREZ. Will there be no need to call a plebi-
scite for those regions or political units which may be
affected by the establishment of these autonomous
regions?

MR. BENNAGEN. For the specification of the
region?

MR. SUAREZ. Yes.

MR. BENNAGEN. There will be a need, but the con-
cept should be there. That is why we are saying m
Section 9: “all areas and populations that have dis-
tinctive,” et cetera.

MR. SUAREZ. In the case of Mindanao, if we are
going to exclude the three provinces mentioned by
Commissioner Ople, are we not going to consult the
people therein by way of a plebiscite?

MR. BENNAGEN. In the process of defining the
boundaries?

MR. SUAREZ. Yes.

MR. BENNAGEN. There will be a consultation.

MR. SUAREZ. And these consultations will take the
form of a plebiscite?

MR. BENNAGEN. Whatever is appropriate.

MR. SUAREZ. Would this be before or after the
promulgation of the organic act?

MR. SUAREZ. May I now go to my last question
Under Section 16, there are certain periods stipulatec
within which the first legislature is under obligation t(
p^s t e organic acts for the autonomous regions ii
Mindanao and the Cordillera. Do I take it that per th(
exp anation of Commissioner Bennagen there is n<
need for a plebiscite before or after the promulgation o

insofar as the autonomous regions o
Mindanao and Cordillera are concerned?

MR. BENNAGEN. In the process it should be before,
and there is that terminal act, which would then make
the region acquire its juridical personality.

MR. SUAREZ. Suppose the three provinces would
object, but the rest of the Mindanao areas would agree,
what would be the result of the plebiscite? How would
it affect the establishment or creation of the auto-
nomous region?

MR. BENNAGEN. May I answer that?

MR. NOLLEDO. Yes.

MR. BENNAGEN. There is a need for a plebiscite
within the region to approve the charter. What 1 was

MR. NOLLEDO. An identical question was asked
by Commissioner Davide a few hours ago, and my
answer was that, personally, without binding the Com-
mittee, it should be considered as a whole, but there is
an amendment on how to resolve such problem to be
presented later on. As far as I am concerned and follow-

MONDAY, AUGUST n, 1986

201

ing the democratic process, the entire region should
be bound by the majority rule.

MR. SUAREZ. That means if the electorate in the
three provinces would be more than the electorate in
the autonomous region.

MR. NOLLEDO. Then .the organic act cannot be
granted because as a whole the voters from the three
provinces will defeat the need for a majority of all the
voters within the region.

MR. SUAREZ. Is that the official position of the
Committee?

MR. NOLLEDO. That is my interpretation now, but I
understand that there will be an amendment to be
presented later on.

MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). The
Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, in view of the
time and the fact that we still have many registered
interpellators, may I move to adjourn until tomorrow
at nine-thirty in the moming.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento). Is
there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
moming.

It was 6:32 p.m.

*. 1

(

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986

203

R.C.C. NO. 54
Tuesday, August 12, 1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 9:44 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia
Munoz Palma, called the session to order.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing
the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain
standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable
Ahmad Domocao Alonto.

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.

PRAYER

MR. ALONTO. Wa qaala Rabbukum ud-’uuniii
‘astafib lakum. And your Lord hath said: Call to Me that
I may answer your call . . .

Bismillaahir-Rahmaanir-Rahilim. — In the name of
Allah, Most Benevolent and Most Merciful.

We begin in Thy Holy Name, O God, to firm our
hope for Thy Eternal Grace.

‘Al-Hamdu LVllaahi RabbVl-halamin; - All Praise
be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds;

Verily none is worthy of praise save Thou, O God,
as Thou, and only Thou, is the Creator, Protector,
Preserver and Sustainer of the Universe.

‘Ar-Rahmaanin—Rahiim; — Most Beneficent, Ever-
Merciful;

Thy ever-watchful and inexhaustible grace, O God,
is what we need most to guide us in this period of
crises and revolution, of restlessness and anguish, of
anxiety and frustrations, to light our way amidst our
nascent but sincere effort of nation-building.

Maaliki Yawmid-Diin! King of the Day of Judgment;

We, who are Thy obedient servants in this tiny
corner of Thy Universe, O God, are fully aware and
do firmly believe that one day everyone will have to
render account of all his acts to Thee.

‘lyyaaka na’-budu wa ’iyyaaka nasta-’iin. — You alone
we worship; and to You alone we turn for help.

We affirm that none is worthy of worship and
devotion, submission and obedience, and subjection
and servitude, except Thou, O God, and we affirm
that we are Thy worshippers. Thy subjects and Thy
slaves; keeping these relations with Thee and Thee
alone; and so we ask Thy help as Thou art the Lord
of the whole Universe and Thou hast all powers and
Thou art the Master of everything; and verily, only
Thee can give us help for the fulfillment of our cry
for justice, freedom and democracy.

‘IhdinasSiraatal-Mustaqiim — Guide us to the straight
path.

We confess, O God, that events in this country in
the past few years have confused our vision and made
us lose sight of the right way - the way that can lead
us aright in every walk of life and can keep us free
from errors and evil consequences and bring success
in the end, so “Thine Will be done.”

Siraatal-laziina 'an-amta ‘alay-him — The path of
those whom Thou hast favoured;

We affirm our commitment, O God, to the ways of
those excellent exemplars of human behavior who
have not deviated a jot away from Thy blessed way
throughout the whole course of human history — the
Anbiyya or the Prophets, the Siddiqin or the Faith-
ful, the Shuhada or the Martyrs, and the Salihin or
the Righteous -

Gayril-magzuubi ‘alay-him wa laz-zaaallUin. — Not
(the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those
who go astray .

Rabbanaa las tuzig quluubanaa ba’-da ‘iz hadaytanaa
wa hablanaa milladunka rahmattan ’innaka ’Antal-
Wahhaab.

Our Lord! Cause not our hearts to stray after Thou
hast guided us, and bestow upon us mercy from Thy
Presence. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Bestower!

Our Lord! We pray for Thy guidance in framing the
fundamental law of the land and grant that by it, we
can establish Urrimattun yadu’una ila’l khayr wa ya’
muruuna bil ma’ruuf wa yanha’una ani’l Munkar. .
a nation that invites to goodness, enjoins what is right
and forbids what is evil. AMEEN. YA RABBAL’ALA-
MIIN.

204

TUESDAY, AUGUST 1 2, 1 986

ROLL CALL

THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will call
the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar . . ; .

. Present*

Natividad . . .

. . Present*

Alonto

. Present

Nieva

. . Absent

Aquino

. Present*

Nolledo ....

. . Present*

Azcuna

. Present*

Ople

. . Present

Bacani

. Present

PadiUa

. . Present

Bengzon

. Present*

Quesada . . . . .

. . Present

Bennagen . . . .

. Present

Rama

. . Present

Bemas

. Present

Regalado

. . Absent

Rosario Braid . .

. Present

Reyes de los . .

. . Present

Brocka

Rigos

. . Present

Calderon

Rodrigo

. . Present

Castro de . . . .

Romulo

. . Present

Colayco

Rosales

. . Present

Concepcion . . ,

. . Present

Sarmiento . . . .

. . Present*

Davide

. . Present

Suarez

. . Present

Foz

Sumulong . . . .

. . Present

Garcia

Tadeo

. . Present

Gascon

Tan

. . Present

Guingona . . .

Tingson . . . .

. . Present

Jamir

Treflas

. . Present

Laurel . . .

Uka

. . Present

Lerum ....

Villacorta . . .

. . Present

Maambong . .

. . Present

ViUegas

. . Present

Monsod .

The President

is present.

The roll call shows 36 Members responded to the call.

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair declares the presence of
a quorum.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Assistant Floor Leader is
recognized.

MR. CALDERON. I move that we dispense with the
reading of the Journal of yesterday’s session.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of
Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary-General read the following Proposed
Resolution on First Reading, Petition and Communica-
tions, the President making the corresponding refer-
ences:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING

Proposed Resolution No. 538, entitled:

RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION
TO CONGRATULATE SENATOR TANADA.

Introduced by Hon. Villacorta, Munoz Palma, Bemas,
Tan, Abubakar, Alonto, Aquino, Azcuna, Bacani,
Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Rosario Braid, Brocka,
Calderon, de Castro, Colayco, Concepcion,
Davide, Jr., Foz, Garcia, Gascon, Guingona, Jamir,
Laurel, Jr., Lerum, Maambong, Monsod, Natividad,
Nieva, Nolledo, Ople, Padilla, Quesada, Rama,
Regalado, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, Rodrigo,
Romulo, Rosales, Sarmiento, Suarez, Sumulong,
Tadeo, Tingson, Trenas, Uka and Villegas.

To the Steering Committee.

PETITION

Petition of the Honorable Commissioners Decoroso R.
Rosales, Jose D. Calderon, Teodoro C. Bacani, Eulogio
R. Lerum, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Adolfo S. Azcuna,
Teodulo C. Natividad and Jose B. Laurel, Jr., expressing
support of the Petition of the Honorable Commissioners
Lugum L. Uka, Napoleon G. Rama, Florenz D. Regala-
do, Regalado E. Maambong, Jose N. Nolledo, Ma. Teresa
F. Nieva, Yusup R. Abubakar and Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
asking the Committee on Human Resources to submi
to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 a con-
solidated committee report.

(Petition No. 2 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection that we
dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous

session. (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we
approve the Journal of yesterday’s session.

Is there any objection? (Silen
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that
proceed to the Reference of Business.

COMMUNICATIONS

Communication from Mr. Dorentino Z. Floresta of the
Knights of Columbus, Council 3722, Olongapo City,
saying that if the Filipino people thru its President,
Corazon C. Aquino, decides to extend the US military
bases in the Philippines, he strongly recommends that
the compensation given to the Philippine government by
the U.S. government for the use of the bases be con-
sidered rental and the same shall be increased in accord-
ance with the prevailing rentals paid by the United
States to Spain, Korea, Japan, Turkey, and Germany;
that the Labor Code of the Philippines shall be applied
to the labor-management relationship inside the bases;
that criminal offenses committed by American service-

♦Appeared after the roll call

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986

205

men must be tried by the Philippine courts; and that the
Philippine government shall have effective control over
the bases including the operation of business establish-
ments.

(Communication No. 524 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles.

Thirty-seven letters with eleven thousand seventy-nine
(1 1,079) signatories with their respective addresses, all
seeking to include in the Constitution a provision
obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from
the moment of conception.

(Communication No. 525 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory , and
Declaration of Principles.

Letter from Mr. Jaime Z. Bermudez of Agbannawag,
Rizal, Nueva Ecya, urging the Constitutional Com-
mission to include provisions on land reform that would
enable small landowners to recover their lands from
their tenants.

(Communication No. 526 — Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Communication from the Council of the Lmty of the
Philippines, CAP Bldg., 372 Cabildo Street, totrmuros,
Manila, signed by its President, Henrietta Tambun mg
de Villa, seeking inclusion in the Constitution t e ngh
to life from conception” and the integration of reli-
gious instruction” into the primary and secondary
educational system.

(Communication No. 527 - Constitutional Commission
of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR RAMA I move that we continue consideration
of Committee ’ Report Nos. 21 and 25 on Proposed
Resolution No. 51 1, the Article on Local Governments.

THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The honorable Chairman and members of the Com-
mittee on Local Governments are requested to occupy
the front table.

MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is recog-
nized.

MR. VILLACORTA. In the Reference of Business,
there was a petition submitted by the honorable Com-
missioner Decoroso Rosales, et al, requesting the
Committee on Human Resources to submit to the
Constitutional Commission a consolidated committee
report. This puzzles the members of the Human Re-
sources Committee because we had already a long time
ago submitted a consolidated report. This gives a wrong
impression to the public about the efficiency of our
Committee. We do not fuUy understand the intention
of this petition.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended for a few
minutes to check with the Secretariat.

It was 9:58 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:13 a.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Villacorta be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.

MR. VILLACORTA.* Madam President, given the
stature of our Commission, I shall try to be as restrained
and as respectful as possible. But I would like to be just
and fair to the members of our Committee on Human
Resources who worked very hard in coming out with a
report, which we submitted to the Commission as
scheduled last July 15, 1986.

Because of the aggressive efforts of one lobbyist, Don
Miguel Cuenco, some Commissioners signed two peti-
tions which came as a surprise to us because we feel that
after a committee has submitted its report, whatever
additional recommendations Members of the Commis-
sion as well as lobbyists may have should be presented
on the floor. Nonetheless, because we feel that we
should be courteous to our colleagues in the Com-
mission, we responded immediately to the first petition
of some Members of the Commission.

This first petition basically requested that the teach-
ing of Philippine geography and folk songs as well as
making Spanish an official language be incorporated in
the Constitution. We patiently listened last week in this
meeting we had with Don Miguel Cuenco which I had to
adjourn prematurely because there was endless talk
from this resource person who was not even a Member
of the Constitutional Commission. We are now con-
fronted with a second petition asking the Committee on
Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional

206

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986

Commission of 1986 a consolidated committee report.
This further puzzles us. As we read this petition which
was signed by Commissioners Rosales, Calderon, Bacani,
Lerum, Davide, Azcuna, Natividad and Laurel, there is a
statement here that “with the exception of the Honor-
able Wilfrido Villacorta, Chairman of the Committee
who is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of De La
Salle University and the Honorable Serafin V. C. Guin-
gona, Chancellor of Araneta University, to our know-
ledge there is no educator in the Committee.” Actually,
there are competent educators among the supporters of
making English, Spanish and Filipino continue as the
official languages of our country.

This is a very erroneous and unjust statement because
aside from Commissioner Guingona and myself, there
are six other educators in the Committee, namely: Com-
missioner Quesada who has been teaching for 16 years;
Commissioner Rosario Braid, for 30 years; Commis-
sioner Bennagen, for 17 years; Commissioner Uka, for
30 years; Commissioner Trenas, Dean of the College of
Law of Iloilo University; and Commissioner Rigos.

I would like to give our fellow Commissioners who
signed the petition the benefit of the doubt. But this is
just my plea to our colleagues in the Commission: Let
us not allow one lobbyist to create internal dissension
in this Commission. It is an affront to the integrity of
t IS Commission, and we would like an explanation
from our coUeagues about the background of this
second petition.

Thank you very much. Madam President.

• Madam President, may I be recog-
nized? > j b

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Brocka is recog
mzed.

MR. BROCKA. Thank you very much. Madam Pres
ident.

addition to what Commissioner Villacorta said,

u signed this petitio

w ether they read what they were signing before the
signe . get the feeling that when they signed this, it
m eference to the old man who happens to be thei
eac er m (^bu. As Commissioner Villacorta said, w

Request of the lobbyist last week and
was short of bemg absurd.

the CnmmicB- ^ Would like to question whethe

thev were signed this petition read wh£

in this nartieni^^ because some of the things that wei

innk like iHint ^ ^ Just SO absurd they make i
look like idiots. It says here:

THE COMMIT-
TEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES HAS RESOLVED TO

INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION WITH
THE SECTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS OF RESOLU-
TION NO. 141 SEEK TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW

CONSTITUTION, WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT
THEY ARE NOT CONFLICTING. Therefore, we, the
undersigned Commissioners, respectfully ask the Commit-
tee on Human Resources to approve the following Articles
which we beg leave to discuss one by one.

1. Section 6 . The television owned, controlled and/or
supervised by the Government shall accord prime time to
Spanish programs.

The Philippine Government shall also have radio broad-
casts in Spanish addressed to Latin America . . .

2. Section 7 . For the preservation and propagation of
the Spanish language, the Government shall provide for the
teaching of courses on journalism in Spanish at the Univer-
sity of the Philippines, University of Sto. Tomas, and Uni-
versity of San Agustin in Iloilo. The Minister of Culture,
Education and Sports shall make representations to the
Spanish Government, through the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, to open courses on Spanish journalism at the
Centro Cultural de Espaha in Makati, which is a very good
school for the teaching of Spanish . . .

3. Section 19 of Resolution 451 reads:

A sum of one-half million pesos has to be appropriated
for the teaching of our native songs in the elementary and
high school levels . . .

4. Section 13. The President of the Philippines shall
create a Board on Textbooks on Philippine and World
Geography to be composed of the Minister of Education,
Culture and Sports, the Director of Coast and Geodetic
Survey, the Director of the Bureau of National Census and
a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs . . .

5. “Section 14. The President of the Philippines shall
create an office to be named as Deputy Minister of Educa-
tion, Culture and Sports for the Spanish language and the
educational systems of Spain, the Spanish-speaking coun-
tries, including the educational system for the Hispanic
Americans in U.S.A.”. . .

6. The Authors of Resolution No. 451 hereby amend
SECTION 5 thereof to read as follows:

“SECTION 5. A new Ministry entitled ‘Ministry for the
Conservation and Promotion of the Cebuano, Tausug and
the Cebuano in Indonesia’ is created. The President of the
Philippines shall appoint the Minister, who shall be a
Moslem Tausug, to represent the Tausugs in the City of
Jolo and in the six hundred islands of the Sulu Archipe-
lago . . .

7. “SECTION 9. The teaching of Spanish shall be com-
pulsory in the fourth, third, second and first years in high
school, public as well as private.

Discursos de Malolos y Poesias Filipinas, . . . Spanish
grammar . . . shall be taught compulsory in the second and
first years in the high school, public as well as private . . .

I stood up mainly because while it is the prerogative
of private citizens to petition, I wish that they would
think first before signing their names. Otherwise, what
happens is that we do take time out to listen and go

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986

207

through meetings that are just so absurd they make us
look like idiots.

Thank you very much.

MR. RAMA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bacani is recog-
nized.

BISHOP BACANI. Madam President, I do not want
to go into further explanations of this. I would like to
move that the petition be withdrawn. I do not want to
go into further explanations not because I have not read
the petition; I have read it but I signed it for it to be
heard. And I think it is right that we should ask the peti-
tion to be heard. However, I ask that it be withdrawn so
that it will not cause trouble anymore.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Calderon be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Calderon is recog-
nized.

MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I do not deny
the right of Commissioner Villacorta or of any of my
colleagues in this Commission to pinpoint a lobbyist but
I certainly deem it unethical and unkind to mention
names, especially if the person mentioned had an out
standing record as a parliamentarian and as a patnot.
That is all. Madam President.

MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commis-
sioner Maambong be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.

Is this still on the same subject matter?

MR MAAMBONG. Yes, Madam President. I do not
mind saying in reply to the query of Commissioner
Brocka that I was one of those who signed the first peti-
tion not the one under consideration. As a matter of
fact’ in compliance with the invitation of the Commit-
tee ’on Human Resources in the last meeting convened
because of that petition and for some other matters in
the agenda, I appeared before the Committee and I
would like to confirm that one of the issues taken up by
that Committee in relation to this petition was the
possibility of constitutionalizing the teaching of geo-
graphy and folk songs at the insistence of Don Miguel
Cuenco. When he was heard by the Committee, he
insisted that Spanish be used as one of the national

languages. Those were the issues taken. Madam
President.

I had a particular reason for signing the petition
because aside from the issues raised by Don Miguel
Cuenco, I was very much interested in the evolution of
the national language. As a matter of fact, upon my
representations and through the kindness of the Chair-
man, Commissioner Villacorta, and with the help of
Commissioners Brocka and Rigos, I was able to con-
vince the Committee to insert as a last sentence on
Section 22 of their report. Committee Report No. 29,
the following provision: IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE, DUE CONSIDERA-
TION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE DIALECT AND
LANGUAGES OF THE FILIPINOS or a statement to
that effect. This was approved by the Committee, after
which I felt that my job was finished. But since Don
Miguel Cuenco was still there and he was insisting on
other points, I suggested to the Committee — and this
is on record — that the teaching of geography was
already covered by Section 3 of the committee report
which provides that all educational institutions should
instill political consciousness. I felt that if one wants to
be politically conscious, he should know what is around
him and that involves the teaching of geography.

Regarding the teaching of folk songs, I also made it of
record that it is, in fact, covered by Section 29 of the
report which provides that the State shall support and
encourage the development of a Filipino national
culture.

Regarding the Spanish language, the Committee was
very emphatic in telling Don Miguel Cuenco that the
Committee had already decided that the national
language would not be included in the committee
report. So at that moment, I felt I had done my job. We
heard Don Miguel Cuenco and I thought the issue was
closed. It is unfortunate that a second petition had been
filed here, but I do not think we should begrude the
other Commissioners for it. Probably the other Com-
missioners also have a point to share with the Commit-
tee in much the same way that I did which I shared with
the Committee and which the Committee kindly
acceded to.

• That is all I wanted to say. Madam President. I do not
think there was any affront on the part of some Mem-
bers of the Commission in signing this petition.

Thank you very much.

MS. QUESADA. Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recog-
nized.

MS. QUESADA. I would like to express, in behalf of
the Committee, a desire to delete or scrap out this
second petition because it puts the members of the
Committee in a very disparaging light. It is in that par-
ticular kind of tone that we responded or reacted to this

208

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986

early reading of a resolution that has been officially
entered into the Journal. So, I think it is also but fair to
react because we are very reactive human beings and we
feel that this kind of unjust accusation of being incom-
petent would have to be corrected immediately.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT. There is still a motion pending
before us, the motion of Commissioner Bacani to with-
draw this petition on the ground that it seeks to require
the Committee on Human Resources to submit a con-
solidated report, which report, according to Com-
missioner Villacorta, has already been submitted since
July 12 and this has been verified by the Secretariat.

Therefore, the Chair finds the motion to withdraw in
order.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; the motion is approved.

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 511
(Article on Local Governments)
Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

MR. RAMA. Madam President, the Committee on
is now ready to continue the
^hberation of Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on
Proposed Resolution No. 51 1.

Is there any objection? (Silence)
t Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. RAMA. I ask that Commissioner Colayco be
recognized.

niz^^^ Colayco is recog-

MR. COLAYCO. Thank you. Madam President. I
nave a question or two to ask the Committee. During
one o the meetings of this Committee where I was
present, I remember that a big group of representatives
rom e Cordillera region was present. I heard the

^ group against the position
tho r j group for the granting of autonomy
nuitr. Z group impressed me as

and when ^ Suppose that the same can be said if
Sid becaiKsp^ autonomous region in Mindanao is organ-

«/;ii Ka •* icreiore, it is to be expected that there

Under Sectional 2 ^ autonomous region.

aiitnnnmniiG o ’ ^ Ilr® areas where the

aiithoritv would have exclusive

Y- g the items mentioned here are com-
mund or commumty centers which would be intended
for the bMefit of the people living in the autonomous
regions. They would include appointments to the

administrative government; the erection or construction
of schools in the barrios, health centers and other
community improvements.

There is a strong possibility that these minorities may
be discriminated against in the apportionment of these
benefits, and the Northern Ireland experience shows us
that the main problem there is not religion but the
treatment of the Catholic minority in the Northern Irish
government. We may have a mini-Northern Ireland
situation here. So, has the Committee any safeguards in
mind that would prevent this situation to take place
here?

MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will remember that
in our report, it is provided that even if we establish
the autonomous regions through congressional action,
the President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over autonomous regions to insure that laws
are faithfully executed; so if there should be discrimina-
tion on various economic, social and political matters
covered by existing laws, discrimination can be done
away with by effective exercise of general supervision
by the President.

Commissioner Bennagen would like to give further
comments on the question of the Gentleman.

THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bennagen is recog-
nized.

MR. BENNAGEN. Thank you. Madam President.

Let me comment first on the observation in one of
the hearings we had. The record will bear me out that
the group being referred to by Commissioner Colayco is
not a big group. They were only seven, and in the
deliberations, we did inquire into the distinction
between that group and a similar group actually bearing
the same name. Tie answer was that there are indeed
two groups bearing the same name with different sets of
officers; one is headed by an anthropologist from
Bicol — that was the group which was present there —
and another headed by no less than a Kalinga himself.
Recently, we received a joint statement of a Katinga-led
organization, which calls itself the Kalmga-Isneg Self-
Rule Self-Determination Movement, and the Cordillera
People’s Alliance dated August 5, 1986. To lay this issue
down to rest, please allow me to read the joint state-
ment. It states:

The Kalinga-Isneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Move-
ment (KISSM) and the Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA)
express our common position of support for the establish-
ment of a regional autonomous government in the Cor-
dillera. We believe that by uniting the Cordillera people into
one self-governing region, our rights as indigenous people
can be protected and recognized.

We dissociate ourselves from Ms. Mariflor Parpan (this is
the lady who was in that meeting— “who claims to represent
KISSM which is the acronym of the organization). Ms.
Parpan is not a true Kalinga and though she claims to hold
our interests at heart, her actions merely serve to undermine

TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1986

209

interests at heart, her actions merely serve to undermine
the unity we have built up through the years. Her words
are her own and she cannot speak for the 2,000 members
ofKISSM.

We further urge all Igorots to rally behind the cause of
self-determination for the indigenous people and, in his or
her own way, to contribute towards the building of ajust,
free and democratic society in the Cordillera and in the
country.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Record of the Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and Debates Vol. III"

See other formats